The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-20
A REVIEW OF THE CASE
John Macginnis on the B. & M.
Injunction.
TRANSFER OF THE STOCK
He Asserts That Mr.. Forb.s La Been
Used as a Tool OF Men Who Are
Trying to Ruin the Concern
and Avoid Paying Claims.

Joh Macginnis, vice president and
general manager of the Montana Ore
Purchasing company. aid yesterday in
regard to the pending difficulties be-
tween his company and h Boston &
Montana:
My attention has been called to the
statements OF Lawyer Forbis as pub
lished in the Miner yesterday morn
ing. / have no desire to attempt any
settlement Of the controversy between
myself and Mr.. Forester and the Bos-
ton & Montana Consolidated Copper
and Silver Mining company of Mon
tana, and a corporation of the same
name of New York by means of news
paper interviews. Mr.. Forbis states
what he knows to be untrue when he
says that the petitioners knew that
the New York company had recon-
veyed to the Montana company. He
makes no statement as TO the time
when the New York company will re-
turn the proceeds, amounting to
company. Mr.. Forbls has been
used as the tool OF men who
have been endeavoring for the
past two years to ruin a concern that
is doing as much for the upbuilding or
the camp as any set of men for whom
he is the paid attorney. And my ~
plying for a receiver VIII not in any
way retard the operation of the mines
involved. So far as the plaintiffs in
the case are concerned, they are salts
fled To have all matters involved In Ii
determined by the courts. 1t seems,
however, that the defendants case is
Of such a character that they are not
.uGIf,@ 40 lnn 40 n Gnfflannant of n 10
the courts.
The facts are that the board of d.
rectors of the Montana company, with
out any consent from the stockholders
OF that company, gave a deed TO the
New York corporation for all OF the
property of the Montana corporation
about the eth of April last. They then
set about getting the consent OF the
stockholders, and asked them to ratify
this act done without any authority
and. by representing to a great number
of them that IL vas to their interest,
obtained the consent OF such Stock
holders. They then gave another deed
to the New York company. This sec
ond deed was given some two months
after the deed of April 6.
1.-THE New York corporation has been
in possession of all of the property OF
our corporation since April 8, and has
taken more than SIS, 600. 900 worth of ore
from the mines and disposed of the pro-
ceeds to suit themselves. The New
York corporation at the time 1t was
given possession of the Montana COM
pany's property had not a OLA
worth If assets or property of any kind
and has not had any property or mon
ey belonging to itself since that time.
"A meeting of the stockholders was
called to meet at Butte on the 9Th day
of ms for the purpose OF having the
transfer heretofore made by the di-
rectors of the Montana company rati-
fed. We objected TO any ratification of
the transaction, and the directors OF
the Montana company and the New
York corporation asserted that we had
no right to be heard. We thereUpon
brought this action for an injunction to
prevent any further ratification of The
Illegal ransfer made, n asked 20
have the conveyances made TO the New
York company by the directors of the
Montana company cancelled M set
aside and a receiver appointed TO take
possession of the property and require
a full accounting from the New York
companyand to deliver the whole to the
Montana corporation, which was The
owner and entitled to the possession
and to the proceeds of the ores taken
in the meantime, and to a full account
ing from the New York corporation.
1T has been the practice Of the de-
PENDANTS in this case and their attor-
neys to abuse and m!srepresent Judge
Clancy. and Forbis' statement I'm the
Miner is but a repetition of this prac-
tice. When this case was heard in the
district court before Judge Clancy he
decided that the directors Of the Mon
tana company could not, without the
consent of all of Its stockholders, trans
fer the property of that company to the
New York corporation in exchange for
its capital stocks. Thereupon the de-
PENDANTS rallied and INDUCED in abuse
of Judge Clancy and his decision and
TOOK every occasion to m~isrepresent
him and asserted that his ruling was
an outrage. They thereupon took an
appeal to the supreme court of as
state. The case was heard in the cu-
preme court, and on the 9Th day Of De-
cember that court handed down its de-
cision, fully sustaining Judge Clancy'f
ruling. The defendants, through their
counsel in the East. stated that the de-
cision did not determine the rights OF
the parties to the litigation and thai
the matter passed upon by the supreme
court being an appeal from an intunc-
ton ordered, in no wise affected The
right of the New York corporation tc
continue in the possession of the prop
erty and to nine and extract the ore:
and advised that II was entitled to re-
main in the possession until the fina
determination of the case in the district
court. and that upon the trial Of tina
case they could easily establish the va
lidity of title of the New York com
pany to the property.
Counsel for the defendants was no
titled after the decision of the suprems
court that unless the property was i'm
mediately reconveyed to the Montans
company the plaintiffs would make ar
application to the district court to nav,
a receiver Amounted for the purpose o
compelling a reconveyance. n in re
Spouse to his notice he stated that h
did not care what was Tor or what ac
ton was taken.
1T is not true that the plaintiffs ha'
any knowledge OF any deed OF recon
veyance having been prepared by tn
New York company and they have n
knowledge to that effect as yet. II an!