Legal Opinion

Loewenthal v. Rubber Reclaiming Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 15, 1894PublishedCited by 7 opinions

On bill for injunction. Final hearing on pleadings and oral proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

Pitney, V. C.

The complainants are stockholders in the defendant company. The individual defendants are officers and directors of it. The company was organized under the General Corporation act of this state. The object of the bill is to restrain a change in the certificate of its organization and in its by-laws which the indi*441■vidual defendants propose to make by the vote of a mere majority of the stockholders, under the authority of the sixth section of a supplement to the Corporation act, approved March 21st, 1893 (P. L. of 1893 p. 445), which provides—

“That it shall be lawful for any…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kent v. . Quicksilver Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
  2. Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railroad v. City of BelfastSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1885
  3. Hazeltine v. Belfast & Moosehead Lake RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Leeds v. HarrisonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  2. Grupe v. RudisillNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  3. Faunce v. Boost Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  4. Scott v. P. Lorillard Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  5. Moore v. ConoverNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1937

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API