The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-06-27
ADJUDGE:. RIGHTS
OF STOCKHOLDERS
Appeal Allowed Where Doctrine
OF Ratification BY Acqui-
essence Was Upheld.
FOUR CASES ARE APPEALED
Negroes Will Subject Of conten-
ton Suburban Property
Deal Involved.
FOUR CASES ARE APPEALED

vital points concerning the rights
and powers of the majority of stock :
holders In corporations. to act without
the knowledge of the minority. arc in
VOWED in the case OF William II.
Peters and others against the waverly
Waterfront Improvement and Develop
ncnt Company and others, in. which a
VIII OF error was granted yesterday
BY the Supreme Court of Appeals The
Hastings Court Of Portsmouth held
That while the acts OF tho directors and
majority stockholders were without
authority, they We're not void. hu;
voidable. and tere capable of ratincu-
,ion by q majority Of the holders OF
stock which ra tincation in this in
stance was had by acquicscence.
he petition sets forth that William
II. Peters, James II Peters, Jane L.
Peters. Minor j. Peters and william,
X Peters were owners OF shares OF
stock in the Waverly Waterfront Com
pany. which was In possession OF 0l3
feet of river front on the Elizabeth
River, opposite Norfolk The Peters
interests combined seem TO have had
only forty-nve shares. while Leigh Il.
Watts owned 253. ". c. Nlaupin. Jr..
had fifty, and james r. Bori,m now
deceased. had $50.
Sold for $4,000.
In 1902 the concern sold the prop
erty to Middendorf. Williams & Co.
the Baltimore bankers for 100000.
Only $500 of the purchase money
was paid in cash. and the balance was
never paid the reason given being that
The firm had not the means at its dis
posal at that Time to close the deal.
me interest mounted up each year 4
meeting of stockholders was held in
1905. at which 1t was decided that
payment should be Insisted upon. al
though this proved unsuccessful.
Later the property was sold TO the
Atlantic Coast Terminal Company. for
500, 500, price which the petitioners.
who were the plaintiffs in the court
below Insisted was far below the real
value al the time. II was desired 10
have this set aside. but the lower court
ruled thai while there had been tech
meal irregularities in the proceedings.
the sale had been made in good faith.
and must stand. From this Judgment
the appeal Is allowed.
Say VIII Wns Changed.
claims that the VIII OF a negro in
Loudoun county was altered alter his
death tigure in the case or Newton
Harris, Thomas Harris md Adabc!
Sprigg, against Wyatt and others
Charles II. Harris. the deceased negro.
had accumulated property 10 the esti-
mated value of $4,000. He reared 4
grandson, AID made 4 will giving him
most OF the property, but the boy be-
came disotedient. and Harris repeater
ly declared his intentic of disinhcrIt-
ing him. After his death negro girl,
who had been his housekeeper found
the papers and turned them over to III,
executor who brought suit TO secure
an Interpretation of the Will 1t was
found that the lines which contained
the grandson's name had been scratch
ed out. and it is n question whether
this was done by Harris or another.
Ia 4fle r
obtained judgment in the Circuit Court
Of Norfolk city for $500 He claimed
that he had contract TO dispose OF
the spinach crop of ". c. L. William
son at $4,000, and in case of his sue
cess in finding purchaser he was
to have $500 commission. Williamson
attempted TO file his grounds OF de-
that X was too late to have this done
From his judgment Williamson ap-
peals. writ OF error being granted
Zig Alleged Profits.
Alleging that Abbott Morris had
withheld vital informa ton regarding
the purchase price and his own proflts
in making deal for the sale of SUI
burban residence property. the Co
Operative Land Company sued Morris
in the LAW and Chancery Court of
Norfolk. The court dismissed the BILL
and the Supreme Court yesterday
granted an appeal from this decision
The Norfolk Land Company pu--
chased a tract OF ground from indi-
vidtlals named Colema n. for the pur-
pose Of development. some notes com
Ing due, Morris undertook to reorgan;ze
and sell the concern to a new COM
pany. and TO this end sold much stock
! throughout the State IL what, was call
| ed the Co1Operativc Land Corporation.
| Purchasers were told. II Is charged.
that the property was being bought
for a good deal less than the actual
purchase price. and also that Morris
secured a valuable piece Of ground fo.
[ b iinsnlf ---l-----