Case ID: pa_355/html/0223-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin, Appellant, v. Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Co.
    Argued October 3,1946.
    Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearns and Jones, JJ.
    
      Clyde P. Bailey, with him Dane Critchfield, Daniel J. Parent and Bailey & Critchfield, for appellant.
    
      Earl F. Reed, with him James A. Bell and Thorp, Bostioieh, Reed & Armstrong, for appellee.
    November 8, 1946:
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This case presents the same question as Era Company, Ltd., v. Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Co., 355 Pa. 219. Appellant’s stock was registered in the name of a stockbroker. As beneficial owner appellant filed a written objection to the proposed corporate merger and a written demand to be paid the fair value of his stock. The registered owner, however, took no part in the objection and demand.

For the same reasons, and under the authorities cited in the Era case, the decree of the court below is affirmed at appellant’s cost.