The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-22
.Bettman VS.. Shade (53 Northeastern
Reporter, 662); appellate court of In

Reporter, 662); appellate court of In
diana
Suits by minority stockholders il
mining company.-Minority stockhold
| efs cannot maintain a suit against thu
| majority to enjoin proposed sale of it!
| property, on the theory that it is the
suit OF the corporation itself, brought
| in their name, because Of the refusa
or neglect of the directors to bring il
| IN the name of the corporation, where
| the majority are not acting in bao
| faith, or have not combined to take
| action to the injury of the minority;
nor can such minority stockholders, as
such, maintain such a suit on the
| ground of injury to stock, since the
| threatened damage is not personal OF
peculiar to the minority. The burden
is on the minority to show bad faith
or a combination on the part of the
majority to assume control to the in
| jury of the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. VS..
Anaconda Copper Mining company (5t
New York Supplementary Reporter,
500; supreme court of New York.
Computation of period of limitations
on recovery of mining claims.-A mort
gage executed by a co-tenant was fore
closed after due notice to the others.
and the premises, consisting of mining
claims, purchased by the mortgage,
whose administrator subsequently sold
all interest to another party, who re-
located the claims and secured patents
without protest from the other CO.
tenants. After the issuance of the pat
ents transfers were made. and others
went into possession and developed the
mines. The other co-tenants, knowing
of the developments and of the trans
fers, after 10 years sued, claiming an
interest in the premises, and praying
the others be declared trustees of the
title for their use, and that a convey
ance be decreed them. The court held
that under Revised Statutes, par 2,299.
providing that to recover realty, as
against any person having peace able
or adverse possession, cultivating and
paying taxes on same, and claiming
under a registered deed, suit shall be
instituted within five years next after
the cause of action accrued, the claim
ants We're barred.-Thompson VS.. Ferry
CSC Pacific Reporter, 74D; supreme
court of Arizona
What constitutes an "incompetent
hosting engineer. A hosting en-
gineer in coal mine and a miner en-
ployed in such mine are fellow serv-
ants. and the common employer cannot
be held liable for the negligent man
agement of the engine by such er gineer,
unless he is incompetent, and the en-
ployer is guilty of negligence in retain
ing him after notice of such incompe-
tpncy. While the technical knowledge
and physical ability OF a hosting en-
gineer may be sufficient to stand the
test of an examination, under state
laws, reckless disposition may render
him utterly unfit to operate the ma
chinery placed under his control. In
competency exists. not alone in mental
and physical attributes, but also in the
disposition with which servant per-
forms his duties. If instead of being
watchful, he becomes inattentive and
habitually neglects his duties. he be-
comes unreliable. and, although pos
sessing the mental and physical ability
to do his work, his disposition towards
the general safety of his fellow work
men renders him incompetent. And if
the employer ascertains. either by per-
sonal observation or the report of 9th
ers, that the holder of a state certificate
of ability to run hosting engine is
not in fact competent, and retains him
in his service he will be liable for all
injuries resulting from such incompe-
tency.
Incompetency does not have to be
shown by general bad reputation. but
may be shown by frequent occurrences
of imprudence, carelessness or reckless
ness. Wherever it is sought to fasten
liability upon an employer for an in
jury resulting from incompetency, the
prior acts and conduct Of such servant
on specific occasions may be given in
evidence with proof that the employer
had notice of such acts. A certificate
of a hosting engineer obtained unoer
state law goes no further than to say
that the bearer, at the time of issuing
it, had the technical knowledge and
skill, coupled with the physical ability,
to properly and safely run the engine,
and is only prima facie evidence of
nrnf 1xvbi nh y,1aX hf, ra-
butted as ndicated.-Consolida Coal
company VS.. Seniger GO Appellate
Court Report, 456); appellate court of
Illinois.