Legal Opinion
Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Rys. Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided November 3, 1927No. 6839PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILKERSON, District Judge.
Orville E. Babcock et al., apply for leave to file an intervening petition. They are holders of participation certificates of series No. 1, which are subjeet to the deposit agreement considered in Thatcher v. Chicago Railways Co. (C. C. A. 7) 4 F.(2d) 63, and Babcock v. Chicago Railways Co., 325 Ill. 16, 155 N. E. 773.
When a stockholder attempts to intervene in litigation to which the corporation is a party, the first requisite is that he shall disclose his efforts to secure such action as he desires on the part of the managing diroetors or trustees of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Re Metropolitan Railway ReceivershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Chicago, M & St. P. RY. Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1926
- Field v. Kansas City Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Babcock v. Chicago Railways Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Golconda Petroleum Corporation v. Petrol CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942
- Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Rys. Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1929
- Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Rys. Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1936
- Burt v. RamosDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2025