Coffman v. McKee
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Martineau, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellees instituted this action against appellants in the chancery court to have certain shares in the Arkansas Anthracite Mining Company, a domdstic corporation, declared to be preferred over the stock in that corporation held by appellants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Martineau, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellees instituted this action against appellants in the chancery court to have certain shares in the Arkansas Anthracite Mining Company, a domdstic corporation, declared to be preferred over the stock in that corporation held by appellants. The material facts are as follows: In the early part of 1905 and for some time prior , thereto the business of mining coal was in a very prosperous condition in the State of Arkansas. This was especially true as to the Spadra Coal Fields on the north side of the…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
(after stating the facts). It was charged and is now claimed by appellees that Remmel was guilty of making false representations to induce appellees to sign their subscription contracts for stock in the company and that Rose allowed his name to be used in connection therewith. On the other hand it is insisted by appellants that there is no testimony in the record sufficient to sustain the charges of fraud and that there was no consideration for the circular letter sent to the stockholders by Messrs. Remmel and Rose and that this circular letter did not create a binding obligation upon…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gardner v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- S. H. Kress Co. v. MoscowitzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Fender v. HelterbrandtSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Little Rock v. LinnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Coffman v. McKeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- L. Maxcy, Inc. v. MayoSupreme Court of Florida · 1931