Lisman v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
At Law. This is a common-law action by the plaintiffs, as copartners, against the two companies above named, for damages growing out of the facts hereinafter stated. A jury was duly waived. Concerning the facts there is little dispute.
Read the full summary
At Law. This is a common-law action by the plaintiffs, as copartners, against the two companies above named, for damages growing out of the facts hereinafter stated. A jury was duly waived. Concerning the facts there is little dispute. On or about the 1st of February, 1887, the Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Company (hereinafter to bo designated as the “Lake Shore Company”) issued a series of 2,000 5 per cent, debenture bonds of $1,000 each, maturing February 1, 1907. The Central Trust Company of New York was named as obligee. The bonds were thereupon sold in the' open market. The…
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, District Judge
(after stating the fads as above). It is insisted by the defendants that the act of the Lake Shore Company in making a 20-vear conversion contract was .ultra vires because of a positive prohibition in the statutes of Michigan.
The Lake Shore Company came into existence as the result of an amalgamation of two independent railroad companies; one chartered under the laws of Michigan, and the other under the statutes of Wisconsin. The consolidated company received its franchises under the laws of both states, although but one general office was maintained, which was kept in the city of Milwaukee,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Walker v. CroninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Walker v. WhiteheadSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Waterman v. BanksSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Boyson v. ThornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Helvering v. Southwest Consolidated Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,956 David Broad v. Rockwell International CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Elias v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,706 Pittsburgh Terminal Corporation v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Favre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson and Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad And/or the Chessie System, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and Chessie System, Inc. Monroe Guttmann, Loretta Guttmann, Janet Rees and Evelyn Bittner v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Fevre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson and Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad And/or the Chessie System, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and Chessie System, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Simons v. CoganCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.