Jones v. Concord & Montreal Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in Equity, for ail injunction restraining the defendant railroad and its directors from issuing the whole or any part of certain preferred stock, which the corporation at its annual meeting, held on the thirteenth day of October, 1891, voted to issue, and from distributing the same to all the classes of stockholders in proportion to their respective holdings. Other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity, for ail injunction restraining the defendant railroad and its directors from issuing the whole or any part of certain preferred stock, which the corporation at its annual meeting, held on the thirteenth day of October, 1891, voted to issue, and from distributing the same to all the classes of stockholders in proportion to their respective holdings. Other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. I. The notice of the annual meeting, at which the increase of stock was voted, stated the object of the meeting to be “ to act on the report of the board of directors, to choose a…
1Opinion of the CourtDoe, C. J.
I. Under Laws of 1889, c. 5, the Concord Railroad and the Montreal Railroad have united and formed a new corporation, called the Concord & Montreal Railroad, on terms agreed to by a two-thirds vote of each party. Chapter 46 relates merely to the corporate name. The stockholders of the uniting corporations being members of the new corporation, their rights as members of it are equal except in those respects in which inequality is established by c. 5, the contract of union which that chapter authorized, and the number of their shares. With no agreement to the contrary, a share of Concord &…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Clearwater v. MeredithSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Hoyt v. LathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Schenectady and Saratoga Plank Road Co. v. . ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Warner v. MowerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Luther v. C. J. Luther Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Wall v. Utah Copper Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905
- Dolbear v. WilkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Thomas Branch & Co. v. Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1924
- J. C. Miller Estate, Inc. v. DruryWashington Supreme Court · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.