Legal Opinion

Hexter v. Columbia Baking Co.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided March 13, 1929PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The question of law which this case presents is whether or not stockholders may by withdrawing themselves from the regular annual meeting of stockholders break the quorum which but for such withdrawal would otherwise exist, and thereby render the meeting impotent to transact the business for which it was convened.

*265There is some dispute of fact concerning what took place immediately prior to the withdrawal of Zabriskie and Tipton. The following is found by the court to be what occurred. Proxies had been invited from stockholders in which five persons, Hexter, Zabriskie, Romine,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Smith v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Brown v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  3. In re the Election of Directors of the Argus Printing Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Commonwealth v. VandegriftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  5. Bridgers v. . StatonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Standard Power & Light Corp. v. Investment Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1947
  2. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  3. Berlin v. Emerald PartnersSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
  4. Investment Associates, Inc. v. Standard Power & Light Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1946
  5. Chandler v. Bellanca Aircraft Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1932

14 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