Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-06-08

Superior Court certainly did not hold tina,
the votes were Illegally excluded becaus.
they were rejected by the Chairman. bur
because, IN the opinion of tina court. The
persons in whose names the stock STOOD
on the books were bona fide stockholders
Ana to our mind it clearly appears thai
the Supreme Court did not reverse the
judgment of the Superior Court on the
ground that the Chairman had the right
10 exclude the votes but on the ground
that, N the opinion of the court, the per-
sons in whose names the stock stood were
not bona fide Stockholders. The question
as 10 the power of the Chairman to deter
mine the legality of stock or the owner
ship Of stock, or the right to vote it is not
d~lscusstu or considered in the opinion of
the court. No other case is cited in SIM
port of this contention.
In State eX rel Martin VS.. Chnte Of al
81 MINI. I35, there was involved the oues-
ton Of the right of the President OF a cor
poraIloh or CHAIRMAN of the stockholders
meeting to determine the right to vote for
Directors of the company at the stock
holders meeting. The President had de-
termlned that certain stock offered should
not be voted and the Chairman excluded
the votes offered. The court said: 1--WE
find nothing in the charter or bylaws au-
thoriZing the ~Presidentof the ornora+ion
or CHAIRMAN of the meeting to determine
such questions
No other provision being made. it was
for the meeting, by a vote of the stock.
holders, to determine, until revised bvthe
courts, the right claimed.,
The court held, that the onjniop ex-
pressed by the President as to the right to
vote the stock was Of no more effect or
binding force thar would have been a
similar opinion. expressed by any stock
holder. and that the person claiming the
right to vote should have presented his
claim to the meeting of stockholders. We
ind no statute of the State of California
and no bylaw of the Company vestinp in
the President any such power as counsel
claims for him.
Adjourned meetings. Pursuant to the
adjournment made from Room 3 to Room
ii on the 18th day of March. the stock
holders met. G. w. Grayson presided at
the meeting and William Bowers acted az
Secretary. On the roll being called stock
holders representing S6.307s shares as the
same appeared on the books of the Conn
pahy were present, and the meeting adj
Journed to meet on the 18th day of March
at O'Clock P. NJ. at said Room II.
Pursuant to said last named adjourn
ment the stockholders met at the time
and place named. G. w. Gravs0n acted
as Chairman and William Bowers as Sec
rotary of the meeting. The Chairman an
hounced the adjourned meeting to be for
the purpose Of e~lecting a Board of Direc-
tors of the Hale 4 Norcross Silver MINING
Company for the then ensuing wear. The
roll of stockholders was called and SS3II
shares of stock were present. of which
o0,93's shares were represented bv prOx-
les; 2o,949 in person and 6,425 in stock.
Thomas Cole, A. Herman, William Row
crs. A. w. Moore. G. W. Grayson r 8
butter and Il. X. Grayson, all being stock
holders We're placed in nomination for
Directors of said corporation and elected
by the unanimous votes representing the
shares of stock. OF the said shares
voted, certificates Of stock r~epresenting
oo,236 shares were present duly endorsed
and voted by the holders thereof. This
meeting, as we'll as all of the others
named, was attended by a large number
stockholders and the right of anv per-
son to vote, who answered the roll calls
The several meetings, as the representa-
tive OF any stock in person or by roXy.
as the stock appeared on the books of the
Company, was not questioned by any
other person claiming to be the owner of
or claiming the right to represent the
same; and so far as we have been able to
lind from the evidence, no such right was
questioned by any acknowledgements the
President, NJ. w. Fox, whO represented
2l0 shares of his own stock and Frank
MahOn who had five shares of his own.
Legal Methods. We are of opinion that
the stockholders pursued legal methods
in all of their said meetings under the
acts and circumstances disclosed by the
evidence, that they regularly convened
regularly adjourned said meetings
hat they had the legal authority to
transact any business at the adjourned
meeting held on the 18th day of March
hat they might lawfully have transacted
1t the original meeting held on the 10th
lay of March in Room 3, had not the in
JUNCTION been served, or that they might
80 have transacted in Room 3 at the meet
ng held on the 18th day of March after
said injunction had been dissolved bv the
'0urt and the court had ordered the cleo
ION Of Directors to be held on that day at
he office of the Company.
A adjourned meeting is but a contin-
latlon of the meeting which has been adj
burned; and when that meeting was req
Harry called and convened and duly adj
burned, the stockholders may, at the adj
meeting consider and transact
ny business that might lawfully have
'een transacted at the original meeting,
on Stock etc. 3rd Ed. Sec. COL. and