The San Francisco call., 1904-04-10
COURT RENDERS DECISION IN SUIT
OVER CONTROL OF MINING COMPANY

inal capital of 100000 shares, he is
and so long as his share in the man
agement and control IS not reduced
below that proportion, his rights have
not been impaired, so far as the ques-
ton now under consideration is con-
cerned.'
On the question of jurisdiction rails
ed by the defendants Judge Sloss de-
cided against them They held that
as the Oroville Gold Dredging and
exploration Company was incorporate
ed under the laws of Arizona, Califor-
MA courts had no Jurisdiction over the
matter. In connection with this point
Judge S!oss said
In the present case 1t appears that although
lne company was Incorporated under the laws
OF Arizona. its entire property is in California :
ms tbe reel , property consists OF mining lands in
us books and papers in the city OF San
rrancisco; its five directors are all citizens OF
meetings or stockholders and directors take
place IN san Francisco: all OF fits business Is
eran IN this State; 1T has 70 office. prop
cry, cry, business. officer or agent IN Arizona
other nan an agent designated to receive SER
.ice OK process. as required by the laws Of
Arizona and, finally. as pointed out by plain
tins' the alleged wrong here complained of.
l. e., the issuance of the 40CO0 shares of
STOCK, was committed In the city and county
3olneo' the voting OF said stock. Is threatened
to orr,i be done here; An OF the defendants, the
answered. Under these circumstances 1 think
IL II weuld be nockery for this court to say
OF OF their complaint. but that they must seek
their redress, II they entitled to any in the
be obtained of any OF the defendants Except
the corooration) unless they chose to make
voluntary appearance
ASK INJUNCTION.
The suit for the injunction was COM
menced February 10 last, the plaintiffs
being John Hays Hammond, C. H. Nc
Cormick, A. L. Ryerson, ]. L. Hough-
telling, E. A. Wiltsee, A. Cass Garfield,
A Chester Beatty. j. E. Doolittle and
F. B. Peabody. The defendants are F.
w. Bradley, president of the corpora
ton, and Directors W. r. Berry, Ed
win Schwab, W. C. Webb, A. Granger
and W. H. Crocker and Luther J. Hol-
ton and j. w. Goodwin. The COM
plant contains the charge that Brad
ley mismanaged the affairs of the COM
pany and that he and Crocker almost
continuously for several months orally
denounced the companys property as
worthless, and then, in order to secure
control of the property, caused to be
held what purported to be a directors
meeting, at which authority was given
the directors to sell 10000 shares of
stock standing in the name of the cor
poration. OF this stock 10000 shares
were purchased by Bradley and 10000
shares each by Goodwin and Holton at
81 per share, price, the plaintiffs al
legged, far below the value of the stock.
But it gave them the control of the
affairs of the concern, and, according
to- the plaintiffs, worked a hardship
on the stockholders. They claimed that
before Goodwin and Holton were al
lowed to purchase the stock, the stock
holders, particularly the plaintiffs,
should have been allowed to purchase
it. 1t was only, however, ac-
cording to the evidence taken
at the hearing of the case
showed, when Bradley and the other
defendants made improvements upon
the property that did not meet with
the approval of Hammond and the 9TH
er plaintiffs, but particularly Ham
mond, that any objection was made to
the sale.