Richardson v. Clinton Wall Trunk Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, filed September 19, 1900, and amended September 29,1900, and March 16,1901, by a stockholder, in behalf of himself and all other stockholders except the defendants, in the Clinton Wall Trank Manufacturing Company, a corporation organized in the State of Maine and doing business in this Commonwealth, against Lyman Leighton, Albert E. Leighton, C. M. Leighton ’and Caroline S. Leighton, alleged to be controlling stockholders and.the president and directors of…
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, filed September 19, 1900, and amended September 29,1900, and March 16,1901, by a stockholder, in behalf of himself and all other stockholders except the defendants, in the Clinton Wall Trank Manufacturing Company, a corporation organized in the State of Maine and doing business in this Commonwealth, against Lyman Leighton, Albert E. Leighton, C. M. Leighton ’and Caroline S. Leighton, alleged to be controlling stockholders and.the president and directors of the corporation. The defendants’ answer to the amended bill contained a demurrer. ■ In the Superior Court the case came on…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The defendant corporation was established under the laws of Maine; but all of its officers, except its clerk, are residents of this Commonwealth, and all its property is in Massachusetts. The prayer of the bill as originally drawn was that the officers be enjoined from disposing of any of its property, that a receiver be appointed, that the affairs of the corporation be wound up by the collection of its assets and the payment of its debts, and that it be dissolved.
It is obvious that courts of equity have no jurisdiction to dissolve a foreign corporation or to liquidate its indebtedness, and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brewer v. Proprietors of the Boston TheatreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- North State Copper & Gold Mining Co. v. FieldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Kimball v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Neall v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Bartlett v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Adler v. SeamanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1920
- Duane v. Merchants Legal Stamp Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Lydia E. Pinkham Medicine Co. v. GoveMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- State Ex Rel. Weede v. Iowa Southern Utilities Co. of DelawareSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.