Attorney General v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Quo warranto, on an information by tbe Attorney General, entered on the law docket of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk January 18, 1907, alleging that the defendant, without any warrant or grant, was using the liberties, privileges and franchises of subscribing for, taking and holding stock and bonds, and guaranteeing bonds and dividends of certain street railway corporations, and had usurped such liberties, privileges and franchises ; and praying that…
Read the full summary
Quo warranto, on an information by tbe Attorney General, entered on the law docket of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk January 18, 1907, alleging that the defendant, without any warrant or grant, was using the liberties, privileges and franchises of subscribing for, taking and holding stock and bonds, and guaranteeing bonds and dividends of certain street railway corporations, and had usurped such liberties, privileges and franchises ; and praying that the defendant be excluded from such liberties, privileges and franchises. The defendant demurred, alleging as causes for…
1Opinion of the CourtK-nowlton, C. J.
This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto by the Attorney General against a railroad company owning and operating a railroad in this Commonwealth by virtue of its incorporation under the laws of the Commonwealth. It alleges that the defendant “ has directly and indirectly subscribed for, taken and held the stock and bonds and has guaranteed the bonds and dividends, and is guaranteeing the bonds and dividends of certain domestic corporations ” named, which aré *196street railway corporations incorporated under the laws of this Commonwealth. It alleges .that this holding and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. Utica InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- California v. Central Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Dashaway Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- State ex rel. Snyder v. Portland Natural Gas & Oil Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1899
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Crocker v. Justices of the Superior CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Cheney v. CoughlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Commonwealth v. KozlowskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- School Committee of the City of Lowell v. Mayor of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.