Titus v. Minnesota Mining Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal by complainant from the Wayne Circuit in chancery. The testimony in the case was voluminous, filling a large volume, and except whore it consisted of written documents, to a considerable extent contradictory. No attempt will be made to give here even an abstract of it, or a statement of its general result; and reference must be had to the opinions for the impressions left by it on the minds of the several judges.
Read the full summary
Appeal by complainant from the Wayne Circuit in chancery. The testimony in the case was voluminous, filling a large volume, and except whore it consisted of written documents, to a considerable extent contradictory. No attempt will be made to give here even an abstract of it, or a statement of its general result; and reference must be had to the opinions for the impressions left by it on the minds of the several judges. The following, however, which is in some measure copied from the clear and succinct statement of facts embraced in the opinion of 1-Ion. Sanford M. Gkeen, the Circuit Judge…
1Opinion of the Court
Manning J.:
Complainant claims, under a written contract, a right to eight hundred shares of unassessable stock in the Vulcan Mining Company, and has filed his bill for the stock against the Minnesota Mining' Company, an incorporation, alleging they are one and the same company, or that the Minnesota Company is the Vulcan Company under a new name.
The testimony in the case does not sustain their identity. On the contrary, it shows the two companies are not one and the same, but separate organizations, having nothing in common between them. The Vulcan Company is still in existence, and the owner…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bracken v. CooperIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Westcott v. the Minnesota Mining CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Wilhelm v. BylesMichigan Supreme Court · 1886