State ex rel. Martin v. Chute
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Upon the affidavit and application of the relators an order was made by this court, directed to the respondents, requiring them to show cause why leave should not be granted to the relators to file in this court an information in the nature of quo warranto against the respondents for intruding into and usurping the offices of directors of the Mississippi and Eum Biver Boom Company.
Read the full summary
Upon the affidavit and application of the relators an order was made by this court, directed to the respondents, requiring them to show cause why leave should not be granted to the relators to file in this court an information in the nature of quo warranto against the respondents for intruding into and usurping the offices of directors of the Mississippi and Eum Biver Boom Company. The respondents answered, testimony was taken before a referee, and the matter was argued and submitted. Thereafter the following opinion was filed.
1Opinion of the Court
Gilfillan, C. J.1
The only matter in issue is the validity of the election of respondents as directors of the Mississippi & Bum Biver Boom Company, at the annual meeting of stockholders, for the election of directors, on the first Tuesday in April, 1885. The relators *136claim it to have been invalid, because, as they assert, the right to vote upon the stock of Caleb D. Dorr was improperly excluded, whereby the election of the respondents was brought about, when, had that stock been allowed to vote, the relators, or the candidates favored by their party, would have been elected. There is some…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Ryan v. CronanNevada Supreme Court · 1897
- Commonwealth v. VandegriftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Mortgage Land Investment Co. v. McMainsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- State Ex Rel. David v. DaileyWashington Supreme Court · 1945
- Umatilla Water, Users' Ass'n v. IrvinOregon Supreme Court · 1910