Manington v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division
1Opinion of the Court
Kinkead, J'.
The submission is upon a motion by tbe defendant to dissolve, in part, tbe temporary restraining order allowed upon tbe filing of the petition.
Much evidence in the form of affidavits was offered on both sides and tbe questions have been argued at great length, orally and upon brief.'
Because of the magnitude of the questions and interests involved, all other work in and out of court having been laid aside, *643the consideration having been continuous and uninterrupted.
The plaintiffs institute this action as stockholders. They- aver that:
“Each of ■ them are stockholders of the-…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Dimpfell v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Harding v. American Glucose Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Railway Company v. AllertonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Christian Union v. YountSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.