The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-01-01

ueeuS Dy WHICH the property Ndr coh-
veyed to the New York company are
not the deeds of the Montana company
and convey no right or title to the
property. but Notwithstanding that fact
the deeds cast a cloud on the title OF
the Montana company n the plaintiff
as stockholders.
On the Attn of June last James Forces
ter and o. MacGinnis. stockholders
of the Montana company. brought an
action in the district court against the
above named defendants for the pur-
pose of having the deed OF April 6 can
celled and a receiver appointed to take
possession of all the property of the
Montana company from the New York
company IND for an injunction against
the defendants. The defendant ocm-
panies filed their answer admitted
the execution and delivery of h deed
and thai the New York company had
taken possession of the property and
asserted that IL was the owner thereof
and entitled to operate IL. and denied
that the plaintiffs in h a case and the
stockholders who a not so consented
TO h conveyance had any rights TO
have the deed cancelled or the property
therein reconveyed to the defendant.
the Montana company. but IL was de-
clared in said answer and otherwise Of
fered I'm court that IL IL should be deter
mined hat the directors of the Mon
tana company had no authority to
make the conveyance, a r~econyeyance
of all the property would be made 10
the Montana company N the proceeds
derived from operating the same while
in the possession of the New York COM
pany fully accounted for and paid over
to the Montana company.
The defendants expressly stated in
their answer that in the event that IT
shall be finally adjudged that the plain
tifs are entitled to the relief prayed
for in the complaint. they will take
such action as will procure the restitu-
tfon of the property to the possession
and control of the Montana company.
The plaintiff O'Connor alleges that
the district court thereafter adjudged
that the defendants were without au-
thority to make such conveyance to
the New York company. and In effect
that the deed of April 6 conveyed no
title. Thereafter. on an appeal to the
supreme court. the judgment of the dis
trict court was affirmed. The defend
ants filed a petition for a re-heariag.
which was denied. The plaintiff alleges
that neither he nor the person who
owned the stock. which he now holds,
previous to his ownership ever consent
ed to the execution and delivery OF the
deed and the ransfer of the property
to the New York company by the board
VI dllt1lOlss vi w any VI fht - Noh'
plaihed OF. but that the individual de-
PENDANTS named, by conspiring together
for the purpose of terminating and de-
stroyfng the existence of the Montana
company, and divesting and despoiling
F, II of it's property and placing IL In pos
session of the New York company, and
by false representations to large num-
bers of the stockholders Of the Monta-
ma company. had obtained n now
hold the control over the holders of a
large majority of the stock of the Mon
tana company. and have entered into
agreemen with the stockholders
whereby the entire control and man.
agement of a large majority of the
stock is possessed by the defendants,
and that they are able TO have the same
voted in any way they see fit. and II
has been and Is their purpose to have
the stock voted to continue themselves
in office as trustees of the company
and to carry out their scheme of de
priving the Montana company of al
its property and bringing about tht
termination of it's existence.
The defendants have disputed and
will dispute the rights of the plaintiff
and all other stockholders in the Mon
tana company who have not assentet
to their desire to divest n Montana
company OF its property. and the New
York company will continue to den,
the rights of the minority n~on-assent
ing stockholders. including h plant
ifs and those who may join with hin
to any rights In the property or to pre-
vent the converting of It. The dircc
tors of the Montana company hav'
made no effort to procure the restitu
ton of the property belonging to III
Montana company and to have IL REIN
bursed for all damages which has bee
done by the unlawful acts OF it's di
rectors and trustees, and they will con
tinue e refuse to do so. Notwith
standing the promises made, by h de
PENDANTS. the property has not yet beef
re-conveyed.
After reciting many other counts. tn
plaintiff prays that the court appoin
a receiver and that the New York cnnl
pany be required to deliver over IN
possession OF all of the property TO fir
and that an injunction issue restrain
ing II from further use of the prorert
and that the trustees and directors I
removed from their Offices. and that ur
on the final hearing of this ease, Oh
Montana company be dissolved and a
of its property sold by the receive
under the courts order.