Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Anderson Iron Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 24, 1896No. Nos. 10,011-(180)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal by defendant Macfarlane and others from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Morris, J., overruling a demurrer to the complaint.

1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.

This case was argued with that of Cowling v. Zenith Iron Co., supra, page 263, and, like that case, this is an action under <3-. S. 1894, c. 76. But the articles of incorporation in this case are' somewhat different, and provide:

“The general nature of the business to be carried on shall be mining, smelting, reducing, refining, and working iron, copper, and other minerals, working stone quarries, and marketing the material from all the same; also buying, selling, leasing, and dealing in mineral lands for the above purposes.”

In this action, also, the defendant stockholders demurred to the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. First National Bank v. Winona Plow Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Holland v. Duluth Iron Mining & Development Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  2. Merchants' National Bank of St. Paul v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
  3. Phelps v. Consolidated Vermillion & Extension Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  4. Commercial Bank v. Azotine Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  5. Carnegie Dock & Fuel Co. v. Kensington Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922

3 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