Harper v. Ampt
Ohio Supreme Court
Error, to the District Court of Hamilton county. The proceeding in the court below was an information ■in quo warranto. The relators, Joseph G-. Langdon, James Simpson, A. L. Cosbey, Nicholas Todd, Simon Cochran, and Levi Baker, allege that the -respondents, now plaintiffs in error, are ■usurping the office of Directors of the Cincinnati, Montgomery, Hopkinsville and Clarksville Turnpike Company,, a corporation under an act of the general assembly, passed March 3, 1834. They…
Read the full summary
Error, to the District Court of Hamilton county. The proceeding in the court below was an information ■in quo warranto. The relators, Joseph G-. Langdon, James Simpson, A. L. Cosbey, Nicholas Todd, Simon Cochran, and Levi Baker, allege that the -respondents, now plaintiffs in error, are ■usurping the office of Directors of the Cincinnati, Montgomery, Hopkinsville and Clarksville Turnpike Company,, a corporation under an act of the general assembly, passed March 3, 1834. They further allege that, at the' annual election for directors of that company, held February 24, 1872, they, as-owners of…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, C. J.
As the bill of exceptions is not properly made part of the record, we are not required to examine it.
"We have done so, however, and may say that if it were properly of record the result would not be changed.
The single question is: Can the owners of stock in this company, which was formerly the property of the state, vote the same at elections on an equality with the other shareholders ?
Respondents claim that owners of such stock must hold .a separate election and elect three directors. They base this claim on the provisions of the act of March 20, 1840 (1 Curwen, 619, chap. 467), and the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harlow v. CowdreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Hyatt v. WhippleNew York Supreme Court · 1862