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

of the Montana company, and the
deeds by which the property was con-
yeyed 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 and the plaintiff
as stockholders.
On the 4th of June last James Forces
ter and John 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 cam
celled and receiver appointed to take
possession Of all the property of the
Montana company from the New York
company and for an injunction against
the defendants The defendant ccm-
panies filed their answer and admitted
the execution and delivery of the deed
and that the New York company had
taken possession of the property and
asserted that it was the owner thereof
and entitled to operate it, and denied
that the plaintiffs in that case and the
stockholders who had not so consented
to the conveyance had any rights to
have the deed cancelled or the property
therein reconveyed to the defendant,
the Montana company, but it was de-
clared in said answer and otherwise Of
fered in court that if it should be deter
mined that the directors of the Mon
tana company had no authority to
make the conveyance, a reconveyance
of all the property would be made TO
the Montana company and 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 1t
shall be finally adjudged that the plain
tiffs are entitled to the relief prayed
for in the complaint, they will take
such action as will procure the restitu-
ton 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 We're without au-
thority to make such conveyance to
the New York company, and in effect
that the deed of April 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-hearing,
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 transfer of the property
to the New York company by the board
of directors, or to any of the acts COM
plaihed of, but that the individual de-
PENDANTS named, by conspiring together
for the purpose of terminating and de-
stroying the existence of the Montana
company. and divesting and despoiling
it of it's property and placing it 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 and now
hold the control over the holders of
large majority of the stock of the Mon
tana company. and have entered into
agreements 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 it
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 all
it's property and bringing about the
termination of its 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 assented
to their desire to diveSt the Montana
company of it's property, and the New
York company will continue to ieny
the rights of the minority non-assent-
ing stockholders, including the plant
ifs and those who may join with him
to any rights in the property or to pre-
vent the converting of it. The dircc-
tors of the Montana company have
made no effort to procure the restitu-
ton of the property belonging to the
Montana company and to have it reim-
bursed for all damages which has been
done by the unlawful acts of its di-
rectors and trustees and they will con-
tinue to refuse to do so. Notwith-
standing the promises made, by the de-
PENDANTS, the property has not yet been
re-conveyed.
After reciting many other counts, the
plaintiff prays that the court appoint
a receiver and that the New York cnnl-
pany be required to deliver over the
possession Of all of the property to him
and that an injunction issue restrain
ing it from further use of the property
and that the trustees and directors be
removed from their offices, and that up
on the final hearing of this ease, the
Montana company be dissolved and all
of it's property sold by the receiver
under the courts order.
Et