The Bourbon news. [volume] (Paris, Ky.) 1895-19??, 1913-08-01


after on April S, 1913, the following
agreements was entered:
Text of Agreement.
1t is agreed by the parties, plaintiffs
and defendants herein, that in conSld-
GRAFTON of the dismissal without preJu-
petition, as amended, as seeks TO en-
force individual liability on the part OF
the. defendants. the defendants agree to
and will enter their appearance TO
suit on the part of the plaintiffs that
shall be instituted promptly in the Ken
ton Circuit Court to enforce said indi
g And it is further agreed that the
court costs in the lower court and the
Court of Appeals that are incurred by
the plaintiffs or any of them in the suit
now pending and which is to be taken
to the Court of Appeals to determine the
question therein involved, relating to the
charter, shall be paid out of the funds
of the Burley Tobacco Company, wheth-
er decided for the plaintiffs or defend
ants
I'm accordance with this agreement
an order was made on the plaintiffs mo-
! ton dismissiLg so much of their petit
ton and amended petition as sets up
/ the part of the individual defendants
! herein
Election Is Ordered.
Thereafter on the same day judg-
ing that the provision of the charter OF
| the Burley Tobacco Company making
the members of the District Board of the
Burley TGAacco Society its Board OF
Directors, was void, and that the indi-
! vldual defendants are not and have not
been the legally constituted Board of Di-
| and further, ordering an election TO be
/ held for the election of a Board of Direc-
| tors of the Burley Tobacco Company, to
be held on the first Tuesday after the
| first Saturday in October, 1913. The judg-
ment further appointed a commission tc
! ascertain the stockholders of the com
| pany and to hold the election.
This judgment was appealed from
and the Court of Appeals has rendered
, an opinion affirming the judgment.
Defendants Contentious Upheld.
Upon this state of facts the defend
ants controvert, as matter of law. both
! receiver, or that it should do so if il
! has the right.
1T is further contended that the judg-
| ment refusing to appoint receiver in
| the former action is res adjudicata, Sc
| far as the illegality OF the defendants
election or selection as Board of Di-
! rectors constituting a ground for the
! appointment of a receiver.
Ihe court is of the opinion that the
defendants, are right in both contentious
Upon the proposition that a receiver
should be appointed upon the ground
| that there are no legal officers of the
company, the plaintiff has cited to the
1.-THE court has examined the text
| books cited as well as the cases cited
IN support Of the text. The court is of
| the opinion that they do not sustain the
| view of the plaintiffs.
No Authority Found.
I'm every case cited there was either
4 danger of loss or injury TO the property
| OF the company by reason of the want
of legally constituted officers, or by rea-
Il do not think there is any authority
! Tor the proposition that the want of
| legality, alone, Of the selection of Off
hold 10
appointment of a receiver where TIE
| property is in possession of de facto off
| GERS and where there is no danger Of
loss or injury to property threatened,
| and where an election of legal officers
| may be had. In this case an election
! has been ordered and the court has con-
| troll OF the selection of the officers The
| other division of the court has taken
| jurisdiction of that matter and is eX-
! ercising It. and any complaint in regard
+, 10 y or any night Of privilege which may
! need any direction or order for its pro-
| lection relative TO the election should be
| sought there.
"Unwarranted interference"
| at would be an unwarranted interfer-
ence Tor the court 10 undertake to make
| any order or judgment which has for
! It's purpose the regulation of any matter
| pertaining to the corporate property be-
cause OF the want of legality of selec-
| ton of its officers, or relates to the cleo
| ton OF the new officers, for that whole
matter is before the other division of
the court and it has undertaken to give
to the plaintiff the entire relief to which
they are entitled by reason of the situa-
ton. That division of the court over
ruled the motion for appointment of the
receiver Notwithstanding ii held that the
/ defendants were not the legally chosen
oIncers OF the corporation. This division
of the court is now applied to appoint
receiver and the sole ground established
! as constituting ground for the appoint
| ment is the same illegality in the seIec-
! ton of the same defendants as such Off
| GERS.
No New Cause Shown.
1.-The agreement between the parties
| filed in the case does not affect the Ques-
| ton, for the agreement only dismissed
| so much of the action as sought a per-
sonal judgment against the defendants,