Legal Opinion

Magnetic Manufacturing Co. v. Manegold

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1930PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

It is plain that only one sale of stock was made and that the by-law only deals with sales. There never was but one owner of the stock, Manegold. It is urged in defense that Manegold by concealing his ownership does not come into a court of equity with clean hands, and that under the rule of Gloede v. Socha, 199 Wis. 503, 220 N. W. 950, relief should be denied him. This is a special proceeding under a statute, not a suit in equity. But Manegold’s conduct was not violative of any rights of the corporation. He made no false representations, nor were any made by any one. Coerper did not inform…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gloede v. SochaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Allen v. Biltmore Tissue Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
  2. Kintzinger v. MillinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1962
  3. Costello v. FarrellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  4. ALH Properties Ten, Inc. v. 306-100th Street Owners Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  5. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Pathe Film Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API