The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-06-28

OF those allegations, and possibly rs to
All of them M efse'xe f9r iaGK q ne
complained Of. hut tic. defendants are
not mere strangers. and the case pre- pre-.
scented ts MT simply one of fraud w. r pns
State Gas Company. Delaware, and the
defendants, other than that company.
are officers thereof. The latter are trus-
stockhoders. They are accounting par .
ties. TO require them to account Is but
TO compel them to give informal lon con.
the corporation witch it is their duty 70
possess, and which the complainants ar, are
entitled to have. According 70 the bil.
/ this information has been repeatedly
the demand thereof evaded and court
OF equity whose interpretation has n con-
sequence been invoked. would be DC.
persistence In such refusal must. me toll
Grated by II, ineraly because the facts
respecting which disclosure has been dee
MED. scni'not without It be absolutely Ut .
d In the case Of Weldenfcld Y. s. r. r. r.
Company (PennD4s Fed. Rep, 615, suit
was brought by a stOckholdar TO cnJoln y
rival company from appropramdg ibat
tho directors OF tho company, for whose
bepe1t the suit was Instituted. had fur.
nished the other company with knowledge
Of certain defects. whereby the location
OF the injured company became Invalid,
and the court In sustaining the bill, says,
at page 62O: S. .
this case. The attempt is to strip the
company OF It's property, In which he
complainant as. n stockholder has d.
rect interest and there is such n dis.
regard OF duty and on-pcrformance OF
manifest official obligation, amounting 70
what the law considers breach OF trtst.
that 1t is case In which the stock
not Involve discretion as to the bring
left 10 tho Judgment Of the Board OF
a R,rseto5s 1t fen s mq pesn o.
corporate property and the exercise OF
the franchises OF the company over the
n spcs" ARE N seRn a;y ana
consorting with It's enemies, and furnlsh-
Ing them with Information as to defects
IN its rights to the use Of the route.
from doubt yet think sufficient is
shown by the complainant to give him
standing this applica ton
n al ths eompany Mash sf Fea s
9o9 suit was brought by the stockholders
OF he company against the corporation.5
Its trustees and the. Northern Pacific
priation OF. the first named railrond COM
pany's property by the latter under
traffic agreement, and the court IN sus-
tanning the bill, says:
1.-THE Seattle. Lake Shore and Eastern
Company cannot, while serving as subor-
dnate officers and employees OF the
Northern Pacific railroad Company. call
lcontrary to the wish OF that company,
without jeopardlzing their personal In
terests. The case Is. therefore, excep-3
have !, a rlsht to maintain tho suit, all
lection to the Board OF Trustees. Il I
IN the case OF Stevens W Dawson. 10
Graft, $40. tbs suit was brought by JOS
behalf OF himself and other stockholders:
to set aside Il lease which, he said had
been frandulently made. The court sua-
ttained the bill and does moi 4 anywhere
indicate that in such case as that.
where the action was really to redress
4 the alleged wrongdoing OF the company
/, CATION upon the stockholder to I. show 9,
!. directors themselves to redress IT.
IN note to the case q {, Mack v.i .
4 r. A.. s654, the law is laid down as fol-
lows:
the corporation Is stu under LEI. the he
4 more OF the stockholders may sue In
j equity in behalf Of themselves and others
4 similarly situated" and refers. as stp-
i porting this proposition to the follow
4 ing cases; g "! W.
Neall u. Hill. ID Cal. 145.
i tf8Allen ". Curtis, 26 Conn. 4566. 1
Colquitt v. Howard; y Ga, 6 sss.
4 S Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allan 81.
Flint and Bayliss Y. Orme, Freem. CHI.
!" G saa: ss' Z. Gouee. s. y: =, 154.
sperngs Appeal p g, / gtlenana;,r Tar
Coleman v. Eastern County r. r: Com
A 5pany.5 10 Beav..3 i.
Mason Harris. y r. :: I, Il Gh: Div D e7
Menler v. Hooper's Tel. Compan ny = Z.
4 Tiy..t 300
ID: Ia :, yts on = . T ri 9 Macq, 7ss.
But 1t also states tbs law to & BE as
4 folio VS.: Biz 65 ts5s $ss
"1f the corporation is still under the
j PENDANTS In the suit. THE stockholders.
i who are the real parties IN interest. VIII
! be permitted to flo a bill N their own ;r
4 names, making the corporation u purity
4 defendant" citing: S5 I
BIatchf. al.
H HedIeyy !. New sese' England Screw Cons.
p4 Ansderton ~. wolfe, I! ! 1 Hun 81 j,
Robinson " Smith, Paige. -. ~, Il, :,
4 And, In explanation of the reasoll why
1 this rule Is adopted, It Is further s's lted
as follows: Ri ai
n EFT would be wholly contrary to estab-
/ lIshed principles Of justice TO permit, the
Il authors OF q wrong to conduct 5Htlgh-
n ton against. themselves as agents OF the
COMPLAINANT" citing: (, x.,,.;, :, I, {
a &Crumlish v. Shenandoah Valley KALI
i road Company, IS w. Va, G33.
a Morawetz on PRIV. Corp. Sect, 1885,
(. Peabody v. Flint, Allen, e. =,
i brewer V. The Boston Theatre loa
4 Mass. s7S-ss7.
4 In view OF the authorities cited above.
! and 't,eIng firmly convinced that thu
! court has not fully y;isaned az Inc
h facts set ont In the bill and exhibits
which are admitted TO Is be true NY the
demurrer. and relying upon such 4. OF these ts,.
your petitioners pray that, they may be
granted a rehGarlng, and that me i, ju q! !,
ment OF the Hastings Court OF the CITY
! OF Petersburg may be affirmed.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
q RICHARD p, II DAVIS II
a l.. t. LEWIS,
II NAI. b. McILEVAINI1, BIZ X
II Counsel for Petitioner.
II GEO. E. FISHER,
al lit NIL ~ CHARLES HALL DAVIS, 3sai
a. Petitioners.