Holland v. Cheshire Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action, described in the writ, which was dated July 9, 1888, as an “action of tort and contract,” to recover damages because of the non-delivery to the plaintiff of four shares of preferred .stock in the defendant corporation, and for the conversion of such four shares. The answer contained a general denial, and set up the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Action, described in the writ, which was dated July 9, 1888, as an “action of tort and contract,” to recover damages because of the non-delivery to the plaintiff of four shares of preferred .stock in the defendant corporation, and for the conversion of such four shares. The answer contained a general denial, and set up the statute of limitations. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Pitman, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows. The following facts were agreed. The directors of the defendant corporation, on November 18, 1851,…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
The meeting of stockholders of the defendant corporation when the vote was passed under which the plaintiff contends that he had in 1888 the right to surrender his old stock in the defendant company, and to subscribe for new and preferred stock according to the terms of the vote, was held on December 10, 1851. It was called by a vote of the directors of November 18, 1851, which set forth its object to be “to take into consideration the subject of preferred stock for the purpose of paying off the floating debt and the bonds of the company becoming due July 1, 1852, and also any other modes of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. ClementsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by4 opinions
- L. E. Fosgate Co. v. Boston Market Terminal Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Starkweather v. GleasonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Cheatham v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930
- Tateosian v. ChakarianMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1999