Legal Opinion

Marfield v. Cincinnati, D. & T. Traction Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1924No. 18166, 18167 and 18168PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.

These eases do not present a question of liability of stockholders where the indebtedness was incurred prior to November 3, 1903, and where the secondary liability has not been waived, but the question presented for determination is whether the waiver of liability at the time of the execution of the bonds and mortgage is valid and effective for any purpose, and, if so, whether it is effective in favor of the stockholders of the consolidated company, the Cincinnati, Dayton & Toledo Traction Company.

For the purposes of this discussion, it is admitted by the stockholders that, except for the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ewell v. DaggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Shields v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Railroad Co. v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. HamSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  5. Robinson v. BidwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Mark-It Place Foods, Inc. v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. Continental Corp. v. GowdyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  3. State v. CaplanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
  4. Preston v. HowellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
  5. Westlake Vinyls, Inc. v. Goodrich Corp.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2007

22 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