The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-02-28
Simonton vs.. PurneII.
time.

The law is plainly against the action
CT Judge Purnell in putting the A. and
n. c. r. r. in the hands of a receiver.
We have already shown this beyond con-
trcversy and quoted the highest legal
authority in America showing under what
circumstances a judge may put cor
| pcra ton in the hands of a receiver with
out notice. Not single requisite eie-
nent enters into the application granted
! by Judge Purnell. He has done exactly
in the A. and n. C. R. r. case what
Manufacturing Company. In that case
Judge Simenton overruled Judge Boyd
and taxed the minority stakeholder max
ing the application with all the costs.
In view of that decision, Finchs bond
ought to be increased to a sufficient sum
to guarantee the costs which he must
pay when the case gets before Judge
Simonton.
The law is very plain as to the rights
of private Stockholders. American and
English Cyclopaeda of Law, 26, Stock
and Stockholders, page 9S4, says:
''While the holder of single share of
stock is entitled to redress for any real
grievance that he may have suffered, still,
care must be taken that the majority are
not deprived OF their rights by small
number of dissentients, and where the
complainant owns but a small proportion
of the entire stock of the corporation, he
will be required to make out very clear
case in order TO entitle himself To relief.
preliminary injunction VIII not be
granted at the suit of a minority stock
holder where 1t is apparent that its issu-
ance would result in a greater injury to
| the majority stockholders than its refusal
! would occasion to the complainant"
In another place on the same page it is
declared: But whenever It is made to
appear that stockholders suit, although
nominally on behalf of the corporation.
| is not brought in good faith for the pro-
lection OF the corporate rights, but is in
reality originated and prosecuted by an
other corporation for it's own benefit, the
court will refuse to entertain the bill
/ These authorities are directly III point
Finch represents another corporation, and
this matter "in reality originated by the
Norfolk and Southern which is behind
the McRee proposition. Finch has brought
the action, not as suffering stakeholder,
but to put the road in the hands OF Nc
Bee and force a lease, presuming that
in 81
bid 1t is apparent that the appointment
of a receiver would result in greater
injury TO the majority stockholders than
its refusal would occasion TO the com
plainant." and yet Judge Purnell, with
out notice, upon the application OF
] dealer in Liquid Air and Wireless Teleg-
raphy has wrought this injury to the prop
crty AS shown yesterday, Finch does
not legally own d share of stock, for no
stock has been transferred to him or the
books of the company. And yet he has
the power TO put the company in the
hands of the road, when over $4,000 of
the II $50 stockholders do not wish such
action Is that right? Is it equity? Does
it not tend to destroy the right of cor.
lporauons TO control their own property =?
In the case OF Ranger VS.. Champion
Cotton Press Co. ct al. brought before
judge Simonton in the Circuit Court OF
South Carolina on the Goth of July, 1892,
Judge Simonton refused to appoint re-
oeiver in a case much stronger than the
one IN which Judge Purnell has appointed
receiver. In that case, Lewis Ranger,
representing 80 shares i'll company in
which there were 40 shares, asked FOE
the appointment of receiver on the
ground that 3. F. McCabe, the president,
refused 10 account for some twenty-five
thousand dollars entrusted TO him by
the company to be used in the promotion
of its interests, the application of this
money to his own use, and his repeated
and obstinate refusal TO give complainant
an inspection of the books OF the COM
pany or any information whatever of its