Haight v. Day
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill, on which an injunction had been granted, filed 21st of May, 1813, recited the act of the legislature, passed the 26th of March, 1813, (sess. 36. ch. 80.,) for the incorporation of the Catskill Bank. The plaintiffs were subscribers. All the subscriptions amounted to 36,432 shares.
Read the full summary
THE bill, on which an injunction had been granted, filed 21st of May, 1813, recited the act of the legislature, passed the 26th of March, 1813, (sess. 36. ch. 80.,) for the incorporation of the Catskill Bank. The plaintiffs were subscribers. All the subscriptions amounted to 36,432 shares. The number of shares to be subscribed, exclusive of those to he subscribed by the hank of Hudson, Was limited to 6,000; and the commissioners were to apportion the excess among the several subscribers, as they should judge discreet and proper. The bill charged that the commissioners proceeded to apportion…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The bill charges the commissioners with an unjust, fraudulent, and corrupt apportionment of the shares subscribed to the Catskill Bank. The shares, exclusive of those to be subscribed by the bank of Hudson, were limited to the number of 6,000, and there were subscribed 36,432. The commissioners were to “apportion the excess among the several subscribers, as they should judge discreet and proper.” The bill charges a gross inequality in the apportionment among the subscribers, and that the distribution was principally confined to the commissioners themselves, their relations, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- English v. SmockIndiana Supreme Court · 1870
- Le Roy v. Mayor of New-YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Ex parte GreshamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
- Gibbons v. Mobile & Great Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860