State ex rel. Kilbourn v. Tudor
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for u new trial. This was an information in nature of a quo warranto, in behalf of the state, at the relation of Freeman Kilbourn, against the defendant, for usurping, using and exercising the office of first director of the Hartford Bridge Company.
Read the full summary
MOTION for u new trial. This was an information in nature of a quo warranto, in behalf of the state, at the relation of Freeman Kilbourn, against the defendant, for usurping, using and exercising the office of first director of the Hartford Bridge Company. It was stated in the information, that in the year 1808, the General Assembly incorporated the Hartford Bridge Company, and invested them, their successors, heirs and assigns, with the power of appointing such officers, and establishing such by-laws and regulations, as they should deem necessary for their government, not contrary to their…
1Opinion of the CourtIngersoll, J.
This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection to the jury, on a point of law. The suit was an information in nature of a qua warranto, against the defendant, stating that he had usurped the office of first director of the Hartford Bridge Company, and praying that he might be ordered to show by what warrant he held the same. The great question in the case was, whether it was competent for the members of the company to vote by proxy, in the choice of their officers ? If they were authorised so to vote, by their charter of incorporation, or by any by-law under it, then the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Reynolds v. State, ex rel. TitusIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- State Ex Rel. Rylands v. PinkermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- People ex rel. Dafoe v. HarshawMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Gold Bluff Mining & Lumber Corp. v. WhitlockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- People ex rel. Chritzman v. CrossleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.