Case ID: nj-eq_109/html/0417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James H. Scott, Jr., et al., complainant-respondent, v. P. Lorillard Company, a corporation, defendant-appellant.
    [Argued May 27th, 1931.
    Decided December 3d, 1931.]
    
      Messrs. McCarter & English (Mr. Robert H, McCarter, of counsel), and Mr. John H. Bococlc, of the Virginia bar (on the brief), for the respondents; ’
    
      Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Skinner (Mr.-Merrit Lane, Mr. Shelton Pitney and Mr. Mahlon Pitney, of counsel), for the appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed. The reasons for our determination are as stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, and reported in 108 N. J. Eg. 153; except, however, as to such part thereof as expresses an apprehension that the passage of the disputed by-law by the stockholders was beyond their jurisdiction and was an encroachment on the powers of the board of directors. The vice-chancellor’s observations in that respect are not essential to the conclusion reached and as to them we reserve opinion.

For affirmance — Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, JJ. 9.

For reversal — ’Campbell, Dear, Wells, JJ. 3.