State ex rel. Donnell Manufacturing Co. v. McGrath
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) The certificate filed by the relator iu the respondent’s office, and the petition (the truth of which stands admitted), allege that due notice was given of the pro-proposed increase of stock. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the law was complied with in this respect. O houteau Insurance Co. Holmes, 8 Allen, 217; Cone v. Cullen, 13 Pa. St. 133? Leavitt v. Mining Co., 4 Am. & Eng.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) The certificate filed by the relator iu the respondent’s office, and the petition (the truth of which stands admitted), allege that due notice was given of the pro-proposed increase of stock. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the law was complied with in this respect. O houteau Insurance Co. Holmes, 8 Allen, 217; Cone v. Cullen, 13 Pa. St. 133? Leavitt v. Mining Co., 4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 234, 237. (2) All the stockholders having attended the meeting, and voted for the increase of stock, it is not necessary that a newspaper notice should have…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
— This is a proceeding by mandamus, instituted by relator, a business and manufacturing corpo*241ration, to compel defendant to issue a certificate to relator, that said corporation has complied with the law made and provided for the increase of its capital stock, and stating the amount to which said capital stock is increased. The respondent entered his appearance, waived the issuance of an alternative writ, and, treating the petition as the alternative writ, filed his return thereto, which is in the nature of a demurrer.
The position taken by respondent is, that he ought not to be compelled to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Chrisman-Sawyer Banking Co. ex rel. Simpson v. Independence Wool Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State ex rel. Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Riesterer v. Horton Land & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Rettig v. Fifth Avenue Transportation Co.The Superior Court of New York City · 1893