Marble Co. v. Harvey
Tennessee Supreme Court
EROM ICNOX. / Appeal from Chancery Court of Knox County. H. R. G-ibson, Gh.
1Opinion of the CourtLuRTON, J.
The complainant is an Ohio corporation, and was organized under the general incorporation law of that State “ for the purpose of cutting, dressing, manufacturing, selling, and disposing of marble, stone, slate, granite, and other substances, with such other incidental and necessary powers essential to carry on said business.” This company, with its place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, has acquired the entire issue of shares made by a Tennessee incorporation, engaged in a similar business and under a similar charter, and known as the “ McMillin Marble Company.” Its last acquisition of shares…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Railway Co. v. McCarthySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Whitney Arms Co. v. . BarlowNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- San Antonio v. MehaffySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- MacGinniss v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Byrne v. Schuyler Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Humboldt Min. Co. v. American Manufacturing, Mining & Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
- Vickers v. Machinery Warehouse & Sales Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1920
- Dillard & Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1918
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.