Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1893-06-09
ANOTHER BIG SUIT
Over the Title to Part of the Site of
Little FallS-EXtractS From
the Court Decision.

The reversal by the supreme court
OF the district court decision in the
case involving title to quite a large
part of the town site will cause an
other great law suit over the same.
The Little Falls Manufacturing COM
pany, the appellants in the case upon
which the supreme court has Just
rendered it's decision, as is well
known, was the old company which
years ago first started improvements
here and owned this property now
in dispute. This company became
badly involved in debt, great de-
preston of business and decrease in
values followed. Mortgages upon
the little Falls Manufacturing COM
pany's property were in default,
taxes not paid and it's financial in
tercsts were in bad condition. Maj.
Morrill, appeared upon the scene and
obtained controlling interest in the
corporation or property Of the COM
pany which is now in dispute.
And the stockholders of the
old company who are now fighting
his title allege that he secured said
control by collusiop or fraud.
In regard to this the recent supreme
court decision says:
"When a party seeks relief on the
ground of fraud more than six years
stituting the alleged fraud, he must
allege and prove that the facts were
not discovered until within six years
before the commencement OF the ac-
ton. Ii the conveyance was in fact
the deed Of a corporation. but void
able because of fraud, if stockholders
desire to have it. SET aside on that
ground they must allege the facts
constituting the alleged fraud and
ask the appropriate relief. They can
not prove the fraud under mere de-
nial Of the execution OF the deed by
the corporation. Where stock js
transferable only on the books OF the
corporation, the person in whose
name the stock stands on such books
is entitled to use it, and the books of
the company are conclusive upon
the question as to who is entitled to
vote stock legally issued. Certain
findings held not justified by the evil
dence. Judgment reversed
The questions here referred to will
have to he settled by new trial.
And in regard to the legality OF
corporation meetings the court fur
tier says:
eff the charter or bylaws OF Il
corporation fix the time and place at
which regular meetings shall be held,
this is itself sufficient notice to stock
holders, and no further notice is
necessary. Unless otherwise provided
in the charter or bylaws of an
incorporation, such of the stock
holders as actually assemble at
properly convened meeting. whether
one or more, and although
| minority of the whole number and
repres enting only minority OF the
stock, constitute Il quorum for the
| transaction of business. The dis
tinction in that regard pointed out
between a corporate act to be done
by select and definite body, as by
a aard of directors or trustees and
one to be performed by the con
stituent members OF the corpora
ton.
The legal history of the Case is
long and complicated. To, follow
the intricacies out in detail would
require much legal knowledge of the
case as well as space. The value of
the property now involved in this
controversy is variously estimated
at from $50, 900 to 800, 900.
Either way the case is finally de-
cided it's present title to city property
will be good, as the suit is between
members of a company, and both
sides will defend it's land. The pres
ent holders of deeds are oil right.