The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-02-02

me DECISION.
.rvtacns ns occasion "ien a state
imrnt .nal ne wouu nucn preicr L.
i.,Ar tne matter uuuer amusement ant
ps,pu.e nr,,en opIniOn, ,,nich 10
OBVIOUS reasons was impractical
Juuge uuneAe salu mat IN view OF th'
connecting contentious Oi sucn emu
nent counsel he round IT sOmew ma
embarrassing TO ueciue TINS question
apparently ouhand. ior that IS what il
amounts to. but he added impress
Nely:
And yet / would like to have you
understand that the decision which
have reached is not "a haphazard de-
cislon or guess. From day to day as
this argument has progressed have
teit that have been driven to the
position which shall presently an
nounce and am inclined to think thar
even protracted study would not
change that view, because ! believe il
is the right one"
Judge Huneke then proceeded to
give his conclusions which not only
HlHAulutu every biN VI Ait AAtAAd anu
Bunker Hin under consideration. but
directly and unqualifiedly commended
them for their foresight for providing
for continuous operation of the star
mine. The decision follows:
Heola and the Sullivan Company.
The first question which have
met at the very threshold of this in
quiry was whether the Hecla company
could own stock in the Sullivan COM
pany. and the answer to that question
involves the correct Interpretation OF
our statute. Mr.. Pummer stated i'm
argument that when ne first consid-
cred the statute that il occurred to
him that a corporation would have the
power TO do that, but that later study
and thoughtsconvinced him to the con-
trary When | first looked at this |
statute it occurred to me that the cor
poration had no power to do this. but |
upon further reflection / have come to |
the contrary opinion. That shows how
different minds differ in their action |
Now don't misunderstood me- ! do not |
mean to say that a corporation not |
having expressed in its articles Of in
corporation the power to deal i'm the |
stock of other companies may do so
indiscriminately but unquestionably |
in that connection the distinction must |
he observed between the primary and |
secondary powers of a corporation as
they have been denominated here. thai
is the express powers and the implied |
powers. What mean to say is that If |
the Hecla company. for example not |
having expressed in its articles of in |
the power TO purchase and |
deal in the stock of other corporations
undertook at any time to engage in
stock buying, stock dealing business
as a stock broker that any stockholdei
could enjon it from doing that
think il has no power to do it, But
where the HIecla company buys d mine
DR. an interest in a mine as it did here
and the stock which it receives as evil
hence of that purchase is merely AZ
incident to that purchase merely
flows from it, It seems to me that it Is
rot doing what it has not a right tc
ioi that is, the receiving OF this stock
inder those circumstances is merely
light which flows from the undoubteu
light which it had to purchase that
nine. That might be called an Incl
lent power Ii certainly would be in :
idental to its power to purchase the :
nine And that is all it did here The
iecla did not deliberately undertake 1
o purchase this stock, but the whole
greement-all of these agreements
how without any ground for dispute
.hatever that purchase of the mine
'as the thing that they were after ana
his Arrangement for taking over the
took and its handling was a subse-
uent matter that had to be worked =.
nj by the trustees.
The concluding provisions of this -
sction of the statutes confirms me in
his view. II reads
Al existing holdings by any such
)rporation in the shares of the capital y,
ock of any other corporation are w.
areby validated
THAT means that an offending COM \,
any, which had purchased or dealt i'm =;
ock of another corporation before the :.
USAGE of this act would be forgiven :.
at offense II would be made per- =
city valid And it would not seem to =;
right that the legislature should :.
rgive all past transactions and forbid -
future transactions Of like char -
ter. am satisfied gentle 4.
en-, from the consideration have ~
ven to it, that the Heela company had -,
e RIGHT under its charter to take this 10y
oek under the circumstances under 81
1ieh it took il. -,
Contract Legal and commendable. ST,
That brings me to the second and its
e important question i'm the case an
mely-and ! found time this morn IL
: to write out these conclusions; Su
rs this contract illegal and against m,