The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-05
HIS SHAFT FULL OF DIRT
Haupt's World Representation
Work Spoiled by Mr.. Thomas.
NOW HE Is IN A QUANDARY
Arguing a Question of Law as to
Whether There Is Such Thing as Ac-
ton BY Stakeholder Against
the Company-In Court.

II. L. Haupt is having more trouble
over his World lode claim After Judge
Clancy decided that Haupt had no right
to the ground and that Il. w Thomas,
who for years occupied it as residence
property. had no title to il. Haupt pre-
tended to be well enough satisfied be-
cause he had succeeded in doing his an
nual representation work by sinking a
34-foot shaft on the ground. Night be-
fore last Thomas Went To work and filed
up the hole. or shaft, clear 60 the top,
and yesterday Haupt applied TO the
county attorney FOR a warrant for
Thomas arrest. but the county attorney
declined to grant it. Haupt and his at
torney then applied to Judge Clancy for
relief, but he also refused 10 have any
thing more to do with the affair, and
Haupt is trying 10 make up his mind
what next to do.
A matter of unusual Importance came
up for consideration before Judge Clancy
yesterday afternoon on the hearing of
several demurfers to the complaint in
the case of Emma l.. sueger against
the Kenyon Council Commercial COM
pany, ". X. Kenyon. NJ. j. Council. r.
W. Tibbey. j. L. Gaylord. a. II. Wethey
and Charles II. Palmer. officers and
directors of the company Emma l..
Rueger is a stakeholder OF the Kenyon
Council company, and she sued for AN
accounting. J. L. Wines, who appears
for some of the defendants. demurred 10
the complaint, and in an argument that
took up all of yesterday afternoon
claimed that as a general rule there
was no such thing in law as action by
stakeholder against the company or It's
officers. The exceptions To the rule are
whore the corporation on its officers have
been guilty of fraud on other stockhold
ers OF have wasted the assets and where
the corporation refused to institute
necessary actions. In such eases a
stakeholder may institute proceedings,
but only such action as might be
brought by the corporation itself. In
this case a receiver had been appointed
for the insolvent corporation, and Mr.
Wines argued that an action by a stock
holder could not be maintained unless
the receiver refused to act which had
not been alleged in the plaintiffs com
plant The aemurrers also set up a
number of special grounds, among them
being an allegation Of a misjoinder Of
parties, and further alleging that the
complaint was ambiguous, for the reason
that it charged that certain stockholders
had appropriated large sums of money
but did not name the persons, and also
charged certain stockholders with be-
ing in debt to the company on subscrip-
tions, without naming such parties. The
argument went deep into interesting
questions OF corporation law and the
personal liability Of officers of corpora
tons u. j. Walsh and John A Shelton
represent the plaintiff in the case and
will present their arguments to-day.
Another matter of some interest in
volving the question whether or not an
attorney in ease is as contemplated
by the statute. an interested party to
the suit. The matter came up on "A mo-
ton to quaSh the summons in a small
Z mechanics lion ga 60 NJ niGbra % N 81
Williams because the plaintiffs attorney
served ii. the statute providing that
such service could not be made by an
interested party. The hearing was not
concluded and viii come up again on
Saturday.
A default Judgment for s536 81. an at
torney's fee of 800 and a decree of fore
closure of a mortgage was entered by
Judge Clancy in the case of Frank ID.
Smith against w. l.. Farlin and others