Evening journal., 1918-03-20
conLInned from FIrst Page.

ihal The defendants hdd ac-
quired the r. Coleman dupont stock
Tor themselves WHEN they should have
made the purchase for the benefit oi
the corporation. 4
Tho defendants whose motives had
been questioned and who are now vim
dicated because Of theanal DEGREES arc:
Pierre $ dupont, lrenee dupont. Lam
mot dupont, Felix dupont, John ]. Ras-
kob. r. r. NJ. Carpenter, Henry i. du-
pont. Eugene J.. dupont, William Coync i
Harry q. Haskell. Harry 7. Brown and .
John p Lalfey.
These decrces actually dispose Of the
case 80 FAR as the lower court is con- {
cerned and any further action VIII have I
20 be taken IN the form Of an appeal by
the plaintiff 10 is expected such an
appeal will be taken soon.
In Judge Thompson's intcrlocuiory
decree be granted q prayer Of the plain
uns that the whole matter be sub
mitted 90 Tho stockholders for decision.
The plaintiffs later took exception to
this though X was tho thing prayed for
IN their Original bill and they osAed
that the court make q final decree turn
ing the disputed stock over 10 the du-
pout Company without the stoekhold-
ers voting on 10. In q supplemental
opinion the judge refused TO DO this,
saying
NO principle OF law or equity
heretofore announced has g0n3 so
FAR as to assert that a court Of
equity may substitute its judgment
FOR that Of the corporation through
It's directors or stockholders in de-
terminins whether it should or
should not acquire an asset 70
which it has no title, but merely
an inchoate right to assert O title.
The Judge added:
The conclusion arrived at IN the
opinion heretofore lled that the
question must be determined for the
company by q meeting Of its stock
holders VIII therefore be adhered
TO-"
This became the main point Of con
tonton. subsequently pleas were made
20 The court but Judge Thompson con-
,ipued 10 adhere TO this decision and The
meeting was held October 80. The vot-
ing az that meeting presided over by
Judge Hastings as special master, waA
Overwhelmingly I'm favor Of the de-
PENDANTS. even eliminat ng the Coleman
dupont stock and the bonus stock which
ihe defendants contended should not bC
allowed TO vote. The result of TINS
meeting renewed objections from ths
DlaintlIs and prot sis were filed against
fhe acceptance of the votes cast. Judg,
Hastings. as master, IN his report TO the
court suggested that these objections D.
oyorruled and the court IN This ina
decree. sustained Judge Hastings as mas
ter in every respect.
on the point Of the exercise OF undue
innucrce nvalldating the vote OF certah
stockholders the court says:
"Tho general rule is that stock
holder is not deprived Of The right
10 vote upon a question in whicn he
has an individual interest IN tne re-
suit Of the vote apart from his gen
e7al interest in the corporation.
Judge Thompson dismissed the entr
question Of what influences wer
brought 20 bear upon the various stocb
holde.s by declaring that 10 would D
imIossible TO look into the mnd OF eac
voter % decide just what influence le
him % cast the vote as he did
The opinion goes into the merits q
The original proposition and after r'
,iewlnc The litigation it length dis
misses the bin OF complaint with all {
Ns charges 0f fraud. bad faith, ana mis-
rnanacement. putting The costs, whic
amount TO many thousands Of dollar
on the plaintiffs.
The big dupont stock suit has bee
pending more than two wears. Ihe ni
of complaint was flled December
1915: the trial began. juno 2s, iyio. u
Orst opinion was given April Il, isi :
supplemental opinion was given Jul
9f 1917. and the decree entered Augu
Al 1917. The meeting of the stockhol
ers being held October 81, 1871 W
suit was Gled against Pierre :. duPoI
and other directors OF the dupont Cor
many as such, and also against the
As associates in the dupont Securiu
Compsny. in which the former T.
dupont stock IS pooled Philip +. d
pont Alfred /. dupont and the oth
nlainuns sought "a have the stock
disputc turned over Go the duPo
powder Company for its own accouI
al the price Pierre :. dupont 'nu 4
associates PAID for 10 % 0enctM u
Popt after the company had refused
buy ~ and after General duPou' WI
dre vhis oTer 90 sell 10 TO the compal
for distribution among faithful oulci'
and employees. ., ....,.
nj I'm tine case. William s. Hiiies "a
/ p. Laney. Of this city; Longressm
George >. Graham and Joel Giiiillan
pbiladclphia. and W. II. Button OF NJ
Work represented the dupont Compar
since ihen former Justice Charles
Hughes and senator Phiiandcr t. hn'
NJ PENNSYLVANIA. have been retained
tho defendants 20 represent mem wh
tho case is appealed.
The plaintiffs were represcnsGl
Robert Pennington OF this city' John
Johnson. OF Philadelphia, now decoas'
william A. Glasgow, Jr.. II. =. Bro
and 2. p. Prichard. Of Philadelphia.
Jud0c Thompson's Decision.
Following is Judge IhompsonS
cision dismissins the case brought
the complananis.
Under the mterlocuiory decree ot :
gust 81, 1871 2 Special Master was
pointed 20 conduct q special meeting
Inc stockholders Of the Z. ]. dupont
Nemours & Company, for the purpose
determining by their votes whether
company should avail itself Of the
poriunity TO acquire the stock purcha
by pierre :. dupont and his associa
from r. Coleman dupont together W
the proceeds thereof and dividends
income thereon.
The question was TO be submitted
The stockholders 10 the form Of an
nrmstive resolution that the compi
exercise its right to acquire the stocl