Legal Opinion
Audenried v. East Coast Milling Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided December 7, 1904PublishedCited by 6 opinions
On bill, &c.
1Opinion of the Court
Bergen, V. C.
The complainant, as a creditor, seeks to compel the directors of a corporation to pay him $35,000, with interest, because, as he alleges, they have violated section 30 of the General Corporation act of this state.
The only defendant brought into court was Samuel T. ICerr, who has answered and interposed a defence. The complainant’s claim is that the East Coast Milling Company, which I shall call “Milling Company,” was organized January 11th, 1902, for the purpose of controlling the stock of the Eastern Milling and Export Company, which is hereinafter referred to as “Export…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Miller v. . WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Chase v. CurtisSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- McMahon v. . MacYNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Stephens v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
- Clark v. WildSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- In Re Joseph Feld & Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1941
- Costello v. Thomas Cusack Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- Lesbia Piedad Juarez-Ray v. Nancy A. BerryhillDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.