Legal Opinion

Centrifugal National Concentrator Co. v. Eccleston

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 19, 1932No. Docket No. 4590PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ANDERSON, J., pro tem.

This is a case where the defendant is the owner of more than 300,000 shares of stock held in the plaintiff corporation, being a majority of the stock. An order was made by the corporation commissioner denying the defendant the right to vote other than a very limited number of shares of said stock.

We think the order of the commissioner was and is unauthorized and void, under section 4 of the Corporate Securities Act (Act 3814, Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1923, p. 1411), as the act read at the time the order herein was issued: “If he finds that the proposed plan of business of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Pacific Telephone Etc. Co. v. EshlemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. v. Continental Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
  3. Brewster v. HartleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
  5. People ex rel. Watseka Telephone Co. v. EmmersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. FosterNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API