Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1910-07-12

HdHueu uO"H ny JusllCe oNcShS!
last Friday. The opinion is of
great Importance to the mining
companies doing business in this
state in that it clearly defines that
section relating to the stamping |
of stock certificates treasury or
promotion, issued subsequent to
the enactment of the law. Certifi- |
Gates issued subsequent to the mea-
sure will not have TO be stamped, |
for this would work quite hard |
ship on the different companies. |
In some of the mining companies
thousands of stock certificates have
been issued and in order to deter
mine if certificate issued at q
late day was originally promotion
or treasury, an extended search
would result. The case was en-
titled the state of Nevada on the
relation of R. c. Moore. plaintiff,
versus Manhattan Verde company,
a corporation, and r. p. Dunlap, its
president, respondents Judge j. A.
Sanders represented the petitioner
while Mcintosh and Cooke repre-
scented the respondents. The court
decision is as follows:
This is an application for a writ
of mandamus to compel the officers
of the Manhattan Verde company, a
corporation, to stamp with the
words treasury stock or promo
ton stock as the stock may be,
certain certificates of stock issued
prior to the 18th day of April,
1909, and certain certificate is
sued subsequent to the 18th day
of April, 1909, by virtue of GER
tain act of the legislature, entitled +:
An act requiring certain mining
corporations to file statements with
the county recorders and attorney
general, and to mail copies thereof
to stockholders: regulating the is
suance and sale of certain treasury
and promotion stock and defining
the same for the purposes of this
act; declaring certain acts to be
lawful; providing penalties for the
violation thereof, and other mat
tiers relating thereto
Statutes 1909, page 81.
The respondents, it is alleged
tificates as required by said act.
The respondents raise no question
in resistance to the issuance of thu
writ 'as to the appropriateness o
mandamus being the proper remed.
in this case. No question thus be
ing raised and in view of the i'm
pOrtance of having this act con
strued for the benefit of all con
cerned, and that from the fact
alleged this case is readily dis
tinguishable from cases heretofor
and recently passed upon by thi
court. denying the writ of manda
mus for the reason that there i
another adequate and complete rem
edy at law Estate VS.. Wright. 10 Ne
vada, lis; state VS.. Guerro, | 2 Ne
vada. 106: Gleason versus Jumb
Extension Mining company. 80 Nc
vada, 1872; Turley versus Thomas
81 Nevada 101 Pacifi
574), we will sconstrue this act an
pass upon the points raised by thi
proceeding.
Upon the return to the notice {
petitioner to show cause why th
writ should not issue, respondent
allege that they have not and d
not refuse to issue stock in lie
ferred and reissued, and are willin
to transfer and reissue the stoc
as requested, but refuse to STAN
the words treasury stock or pre-
motion stock" as the Gaze may b
upon said certain certificates for tt
reason in effect that the legisl;
ture had no authority to chang
the status of stock previously i
sued to the enactment OF the me-
sure, by requiring the stamping I
these words on stock issued !
mining companies, and no authori
to have said stock stamped as 7
quired by said act
The act. or parts of the act, a
tempted to be vitiated by this pr
ceeding, is a law passed by Il
last legislature for the evident pu
pose of protecting investors
mining stock from buying prom
ton stock when INSCRIPTIONS mi
ing companies and mining prom
tiers advertise that the stock
purchased will be used in the a
tual development of the propert