Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-10-03
Stephen @. Rugland, as administrator of
the estate of Christopher g. Rugland, re-

the estate of Christopher G. Rugland, re-
spondent, vs. Tollif Anderson and Rapdie
Rugland, appellants; Nov. IA.
Charles j. Bartleson, appellant, VS. Jos.
Eel. Thompson, ?. B. Christian, j. J. Orvis
and VIM. Gould, respondents. Hennepin
county; Dec. 81.
Summer w. Farnham and James A. Love
joy, partners as Farnham & Lovejoy, re-
spondents, VS.. William F. Thompson, ap-
pellant. Aennepin county; respondent
moves to dismiss and quash bill of excep-
tons and points in authorities served;
Oct. 4.
Charles M. Goss, respondent, VS. Villa
A. Brown, appellant, Hennepin county;
Jan. 2.
Peter F. Martin, respondent, vs. the North
Star Iron Works, appellant, Hennepin
county; Dec. s..
Samuel Fl. Lindley, respondent, VS. Will
liam Crombie, appellant, Ramsey county.
Submitted on briefs this week.
| Katie Thompson Ashton, respondent, vs.
| Susan l.. Thompson and Horace Thomp-
son, (Susan L. Thompson), appellant.
Ramsey county; Jan. 3.
| Frederick 0. Horstman, Samuel Clark
son, William p. Ellison, executors estate of
William H. Horstman, deceased, Albert
Nickmeyer, William Schultz. Jr., ct al, CO.
| partners under the firm name and style of
William Il. Horstman & Sons, appellants,
VS.. Nathaniel r. Thompson, respondent.
| Hennepin county; respondent moves to
dis1niss Jan. 3.
| George A. Bracket, res pondept, vs.. Eu-
gene T. Osborne and q. Nd. Carpenter, ap-
pellants. Hennepin county; Dec. 81.
Frank W. Farnham. respondent, vs. Jesse
G. Jones, David NJ. Clough and Gilbert
Olough, appellants, Grow Wing, Cass, Itas-
ka and Aitken counties; Jan. 2.
| Nathan Myrick, appellant, VS. Judson La
moore and l.. E. BROKER, implicated with
Daniel E. Brawley, ct al, respondents,
Ramsey county; Jan. 4.
Joseph Marrier. respondent, vs. the st.
Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway
company, appellant, Polk county; respon-
| dent moves to dismiss hearing Oct. 8; on
merits Nov. 20.
August Melin and Maria G. Melin, re-
spondents, VS. the Saint Paul, Minneapolis
& Manitoba Railway company, appellant,
Polk county; respondent moves to dis
miss; hearing Oct. 8; On merits Oct. 20.
George A. Weston, as receiver of the
Faribault Wind Mill company, respondent,
vs. Joel Sumner and j. R. Sumner, appel
lants. Rice county; Dec. 4.
George A. Weston, as receiver of the
Faribault Wind Mill company, respondent,
VS. J. R. Sumner, appellant, Rice county;
Dec. f.
M. Graf, appellant, vs. D. Swank, re-
| spondent, Ramsey county; Jan. 4.
Isabella A. Hall, appellant, VS. Isaac F.
Hall, John G. Hall, Julia A. Hall, his wife,
n Mano HaSS IL u
Hall Mccormick, respondents, Fillmore
county; passed for attorneys to fix date of
hearing.
j. S. Roweli, Ira Rowell, Theo. B. Rowell
and S. W. Rowell, appellants vs. A. Olson,
respondent, Fillmore county; passed tor
attorneys 10 fix date of hearing.
Charles Webb, assignee of S. G. Garfield
and G. FL. Sherwood, appellants, VS. L. M.
Kitchener, respondent, Fillmore county !;
passed for attorneys to fix date for hearing.
Robert Ell. Armstrong, respondent, vs.
The Northern Pacific Railroad company;
appellant, Wad ma county; settled.
William S. Harland, respondent, vs. St.
Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway
company, appellant; Jan. Z.
Richard Ell. Jones, respondent, vs.. Dorilus
Morrison, Clinton Morrison, Ii. s. o.
Morrison, Sabin s. Murdoch, John F.
Appleby and the Minnesota Harvester
Works, appellants.
Syllabus-Where q complaint alleges
cons piracy to cheat and defraud plaintiff
in respect to his interests, as stakeholder
in corporation, all separate acts or trans
actions of defendants done pursuant to it
may be joined in the complaint, although
some Of them do not affect all the defend
ants to the same extent or degree.
Unissued stock of q corporation was by
agreement of all the stockholders, (there
being no creditors,) paid for with funds of
the corporation, and the stock issued to
one of the stockholders to be held in trnst
for all the stockholders in proportion to
the stock held by them.
Held the issue was valid and the direct
ors had no authority afterwards to direct
the stock to be sold.
The directors of corporation have no
ing claims which the corporation is under
to pay, as to pay for past services
which had been rendered and
paid for at a fixed salary previously
dgrceu ou, or uuuer previous aSreSmeut
that there should be no compensation for
them.
The vote of the board of directors of a
corporation fixing the compensation of
any of the directors or officers of the COR
porRtion where it was carried by the vote
of the directors whose compensation was
so fixed, Is prima faeie voidabls at the
election of the corporation Or of stock
holder.
Where corporation has power to in
crease it's capital stock the power is held
in trust for the subsisting stockholders in
proportion to the original stock held by
them, SO that each of such stockholders has
right to or opportunity to subscribe for
and take the new and increased stock in
proportion to the old stock held by him.
A vote at stockholders meeting direct
ing the new stock to be sold without CIV
ing stookholder such opportunity (unlsss
he consents to it) is void IS to time.
Order affirmed.
G1LEILLAN, G. j.