Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-01-02
IN TROUBLE AGAIN
Burdette O'Conner After the
Boston & Montana Co..
HE ASKS FOR A RECEIVER
For the Corporations BUSINESS
An Order to Show Issued by
Judge Clancy.
HE ASKS FOR A RECEIVER

ton q Montana MllllllS CoiHPahy' NA'
O'Connor belongs in New York and, ac-
cording to the petition presented to the
court by him through Attorney Charles
r. Leonard, is a shareholder in the COM
pany. The petition is packed by a COM
plant the title of which is Burdette
iO'Connor against the Boston & Montana
| Mining company of Montana, the Bos-
ton & Montana of New York, Albert 5.
Bigelow, Leonard Lewisohn, Charles
Van Brunt, William J. Ladd, Joseph S.
Bigelow and Joseph z. Ray. 1t is an &C
ton similar if not exactly like the
one brought against against the same
corporations and individuals by John
McGinnis and James Forester a few
weeks ago; and it's object is the same.
In the petition O'Connor asks that a re-
ceiver be appointed to take charge of the
company's business until the final hear
ing and determination of the complaint.
After reading the complaint Judge
Clancy issued an order to Joseph H. vi
Wan, the company's agent, to appear in
court next Thursday and show cause
why the order prayed for should not be
granted.
In the complaint O'Connor alleges that
the Montana has a capital
stock of $50, 900 shares of a par value Of
go odCns mat LOT 1884 LII COMPANY .
net income was So, DIG, 1861 and it paid
dividends amounting to $12 per share; it
also had a large amount of money in it's
treasury. O'Connor further alleges
that he is the owner of SO shares of the
stock; that on the 9Th of April, 1898, the
defendants, constituting the board of
!, directors or trustees of the Montana
company, without right and against the
wish of a large number of the STOCKHOLM
ers Of the Montana company. executed
in the name of the Montana company, a
deed of conveyance to the defendant
New York company, conveying unto 1t
all of the property. franchises, rights
:. and assets of the Montana company, and
y caused the deed of conveyance and all of
! the property to De delivered to the New
y York company without any considera-
. ton being paid therefor.
Y THAT the property so conveyed was
. of the value of about $50, O0O, 900 and in
= cluded numerous valuable mines and
. mining properties in the state of Mon
Y tana which had heretofore been oper-
; ated by the Montana company at great
Y profit, and which were capable of being
/ operated by it with great profit to it
y self and it's stockholders in the future.
: as they had been in the past.
y THAT the New York company ac-
= cepted the deed and took possession of
the property and caused the deed to be
4 filed for record in the office of the county
. clerk and recorder of Silver Bow county,
n Montana.
\ THAT thereafter the individual de-
n PENDANTS heretofore named, through AL
: bert S.. Bigelow, as president of the Mon
= tana procured the consent OF
, holders of 131, 900 shares of the capital
y stock of the ompany to the execution
= of another deed of conveyance from the
y Montana company to the New York
: company, and that thereafter and on or
about the 31st day of May, 1898, the
-. &C 80 ,,~+nnr ~ II, 0
= to act for the Montana company exc
\ cuted in it's name, by the president and
secretary thereof, a deed of conveyance,
= conveying to the defendant New York
Z company all of the mining properties,
\ smelters and reduction works, rights
franchises and assets of every kind and
4 description belonging to the Montana
company and delivered the deed to the
n defendant New York company, which
thereafter caused the same to be re-
y corded in the office of the county clerk
and recorder of Silver Bow county,, Mon
tana.
"That the defendant New York COM
pany has ever since continued in the
possession of all the property and
assets of the Montana company, and
has claimed and does now claim to be
entitled to own. hold and operate the
same under and by virtue Of the deeds
before mentioned
O'COnnor further says that the de-
PENDANTS have, and will continue to dis
pute the rights of the minority nom
asserting stockholders to any interest
in the property or to the right to pre-
vent the New York company continu-
| ing in possession of the same and says
that no effort has been made by the
New York company to restore the prop
erty belonging to the Montana company,
and that each and all of the defend
ants have, and will refuse to make any
effort to nave the Montana company re-
invested with the possession and a clear
title to it's property. That notwith-
standing the promise made in open
court, no deed Of conveyance has been
executed"
He says that he is Informed that the
Montana company, through it's directors
and stockholders, cannot in law COM
pei the restitution of the property to the
Montana company, CT an accounting
from the New York mpan on account
of it's possession, and use thereof, for the
reason that as to them they are bound
to said conveyance by their assent
thereto, and that it is only by or through
the action of the minority stockholders
in the said Montana company, who nave
not assented to said acts or c~onveyances
that a restitution of said property and
an accounting thereof can be had"
He alleges that the New York COM
pany has also disposed Of a large mum
Der of the shares of it's capital stock tc
various parties, who now own and hold
the same, and that the New York com.
pany cannot make a reconveyance of the
property which it now holds belonging
to the Montana company which will bt
sufficient in law to fully reinvest the
II aar,nony with Tho tifln tharatn