Dock v. Schlichter Jute Cordage Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 392, on bill in equity in favor of plaintiff. Bill in equity for an injunction and to compel transfer of stock.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 392, on bill in equity in favor of plaintiff. Bill in equity for an injunction and to compel transfer of stock. The case was referred to E. Hunn Hanson, Esq., as examiner and master, who reported as follows: “ In substance the allegations of the bill are : “ That the defendant company was duly incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing and trading, and from that to the time of filing the bill has conducted its business in Philadelphia; that at the date of incorporation its capital stock…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam:,
The controlling questions in this case have been fully considered and so satisfactorily disposed of by the learned master that we find it unnecessary to specially notice either of the assignments of error. There is nothing in any of them that *382requires a reversal or modification of the decree. It is affirmed on the clear, concise and convincing report of the master.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant.
2Cited by16 opinions
- Porter v. Plymouth Gold Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Staats v. Biograph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- United States Mineral Co. v. Camden & DriscollSupreme Court of Virginia · 1907
- Grace Securities Corp. v. RobertsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1932
- Sunseri v. SunseriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.