Centrifugal National Concentrator Co. v. Eccleston
California Court of Appeal
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
- Pacific Telephone Etc. Co. v. EshlemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. v. Continental Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Brewster v. HartleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
- People ex rel. Watseka Telephone Co. v. EmmersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. FosterNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2019