New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-28
DECIDED AGAINST MAYOR MANNlN'.
THE ALBANY ARGUS" CAsE-oTHER DECISIONS
nY TIL COURT OF APPEALS

ny THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Albany y y. June 27-rhe opinion In tho !T
gu" case handed down by the Court OF Appeals 'oons
ana written by chief Judge Andrews, covers ''"'0
words, All the judges concur In It, Inc opinion SUE
The sole question Is which OF the contesuhs 'i"'"
, r m. Iov f,l directors Of the 'AreIis' company
Tho vote cast by the proxy Of sp"cr constitutes one
cf th, principal contentious OF thi, ease Asuhiii,
that the agreement Of ls'3 was binding upon MIS-
worhingtcn heir. of KIN or as legats" OF nr
IN her and That her sale OF The stock TO >Prer was
IN violation Of tho agreement, this fact i mNI
in thi, controversy. unless she wa py .oirr u Wv
,rrccmen, disabled from Transferring the stoch OF
uni,.s, Sr'cr who had notice # the asreemcnt when
he purchased acquired no Title - agas, me MlhliS
crest and could assert rights iond'd upon Such
nrr,hosc n> ,tockholder In the Argus company
rhs contention cannot be Sustained IN either asp;ct
I, transfer To Spccr Vested In him the legli utle
10 the share. although they were ot transtrtre on
The book Of the company WH a. noa tc'n
lawfully held 70 adopt a new ,tock.ho H. l. denied II
/. clear that such contention. II made coud not oe
" The denial Of this power might result In deprlv-
Ing the real owner of stock Of his right p participate
In , rorporatc election There an cNsency which
Justified the adoption Of new stock book IN ms taS
The objection that III" cassidy stock nah o''n sou
In sp.cr and IN. rcforc could MI be legally voted upon
by cassidy proceed, upon mistaken assumption oil
tact. -. ,.,...,,o. o.,o. =, Irdco
rawarG, was ne" violated bccausc III" stock Of spccr.
william Il. CASSIDY and John =. CASSIDY naa nMen
than ten days prior to the election. :, lmr
second clause restraining tn" specr inspectors nom
using the Stock book wa, no, NloiHi'"' o''hu>
the book although lying on the table NJ the ure''o's
me-, ting. wa not used , ,
We think there violation ~ Tho inlnnc
ton and II is unnecessary 10 determine how Si'h u
Notation. If II existed. would hay" affected the con
trovcrsy Upon the whole matter we are oi tn'
opinion that substantial error las been pointed o'
ana that Therefore the order Of the general term should
BE- affirmed" -, -
handed down I'm the Court NJ Appeals this morning
Rehfcdt agt CITY Of Brooklyn judgment affirmed
with costs.
In 70 Argus" Company order for General Tirm
affirmed with costs
squire ACT. scna; squire agt. Mcdonald; appeals
III missed with costs.
Mcdonald act New York Central & Hudson Rive,
Rn!lrcsd company; Judgment affirmed. and judgment
absolute ordered for defendant. IN supuation Will
costs.
Read act Patterson motion 10 amend rcmittitur de
MED with 80 costs. Robinson ACT. Covers motor
for reargumeni denied, With 80 costs. Herr act
udcnc motion 10 open default denied on tie cronnC
IF ineNcusabl" Inches, with 40 costs. Fischer agt
clank: motion 'o rearGument denied. With 80 costs
Tn" Court Of Appeals calendar for Wednesday Is
Nos 1915. 7i3; 49, ,of 100 5oi oos' So7; ,on..n,
affirmed 10y default Under rule -.
| The People appellants against Austin J, Camp. 70
spondcnt Louis Marshall aud A. p. Rich. District Al
| tornr,. for appellants, Frank ID Wright for re
| sprndent.
Daniel J. McLanshlm, respondent. against Grea
Western Insurance COMPANY. appellant l"dsm'n
! Frederick A. Ringler md ar,lher. respondent,
against william ". Reynolds and another. \. II
Dyett for appellants. Henry Dil, Tor respondents
| appellant, Calvin Frost for appellant. f. frewstc
| Tor respondent
Frank wcnncm"r r., r.spTnd,n,; against Phil
Braender. appellant; Philip l.. Wilson for appellant
Lcws Sanders for respondent.
| Manhattan Life Insurance Company, appellant
against the Forty second street and Grand Stree