Legal Opinion

Cunningham's Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 23, 1885PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas No. 1, oí Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1884, No. 100. Appeal of William T. Cunningham, Graham P. Cunningham and Winthrop B. Cunningham co-partners trading as Winthrop Cunningham & Sons; the same parties individually, and Joseph I. Keefe, from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County dismissing a bill in equity filed by said appellants against the President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North…

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas No. 1, oí Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1884, No. 100. Appeal of William T. Cunningham, Graham P. Cunningham and Winthrop B. Cunningham co-partners trading as Winthrop Cunningham & Sons; the same parties individually, and Joseph I. Keefe, from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County dismissing a bill in equity filed by said appellants against the President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America. The bill was filed ini behalf of the complainants and of all other stockholders of the] defendant corporation…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon

The learned counsel for the respondents, in the opening sentence of their counter statement, say: “ It was never pretended that the company could, without legislative sanction, increase or diminish the number of shares or par value thereof.” From this admission, which we readily indorse as correct, we pass at once to the twenty-seventh section of the Act of 1876, from which the stockholders of this corporation derived their power to issue the stock shares the subjects of the present controversy. The section referred to reads as follows : “ Any existing Fire or Fire and Marine Insurance…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. De La Cuesta v. Insurance Co. of N. A., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1890
  2. Langenheim v. Anschutz-Bradberry Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  3. Bates v. United Shoe Machinery Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API