Rose v. Barclay
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 105, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1894, No. 1348, on bill in equity. Bill in equity to enforce a transfer of stock. The facts appear by the opinion- of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the decree of the court rescinding the contract.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Dean,
A large amount of the gross earnings of the Camden Gas Light Company having been expended in improvements of its plant, which had also from other causes increased in value, it was resolved by the company on June 5, 1893, to increase the capital stock from $300,000 to $600,000, the increase to represent the enhanced value of the property; it was further directed, that this increase of stock should be divided among the stockholders as they appeared of record on July 1 following, and within twenty days thereafter certificates for the same should be delivered. Charles…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Laidlaw v. OrganSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- City of Allegheny v. Pittsburgh, Allegheny & Manchester Passenger RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Hazlett v. PowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Hershey v. KeembortzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Kintzing v. McElrathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Walsh v. GouldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Felin v. FutcherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Revloc Supply Co. v. TroxellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Hubbard v. GeorgeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1918
- Hanna v. Chester TimesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.