Ford v. Easthampton Rubber Thread Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, for money had and received. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Aldrich, J., there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff on June 16,1891, owned fifty-two shares of the capital stock of the defendant company, of the par value of one hundred dollars per share; that on that day the directors passed the following vote, namely, “ That a dividend of 20 per cent be paid to stockholders of this date, payable Tuesday, June 23d, 1891 ”; that…
Read the full summary
Contract, for money had and received. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Aldrich, J., there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff on June 16,1891, owned fifty-two shares of the capital stock of the defendant company, of the par value of one hundred dollars per share; that on that day the directors passed the following vote, namely, “ That a dividend of 20 per cent be paid to stockholders of this date, payable Tuesday, June 23d, 1891 ”; that on said June 16th the annual meeting of stockholders of the company for the election of directors was held immediately…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
It seems to be settled that, when a dividend has been fully declared, the corporation thereby manifests its intention that the amount of the dividend should be considered as having been separated from the other property of the corporation, and as having become the individual property of the stockholders, and that therefore, when the dividend becomes payable according to the terms of the vote declaring it, each stockholder has a right to demand payment of the proportional part of the dividend which belongs to his shares of stock, and to sue the corporation for it, if it is not paid on demand.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hopper v. . SageNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Jermain v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Wheeler Beers v. Bridgeport Spring Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
- Le Roy v. Globe InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
- Lowene v. American Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In re Interborough Consol. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Staats v. Biograph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- Nutter v. AndrewsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- McLaran v. Crescent Planing Mill Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Willson v. Laconia Cab Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.