119 U.S. 240 (1886), East Tennessee, v. & G.r. Co. v. Grayson
|Citation:||119 U.S. 240, 7 S.Ct. 190, 30 L.Ed. 382|
|Party Name:||EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G. R. Co. v. GRAYSON.|
|Case Date:||November 29, 1886|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama.
Defendant's motion to remove cause denied. Defendant appeals.
[7 S.Ct. 191] W. M. Baxter, for appellant, East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co.
H. E. Davis, F. P. Ward, and R. W. Walker, for appellee, Grayson.
WAITE, C. J.
This is an appeal from an order remanding a suit in equity which had been removed from the chancery court of the Eastern division of the state of Alabama. The bill was filed by John W. Grayson, a citizen of Alabama, and a stockholder of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, 'in his own behalf, and in behalf of all other stockholders * * * who may come in and contribute to the expenses,' against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, a corporation existing under the laws of the states of Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, and the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Company, a corporation existing under the laws of Tennessee and Georgia. The bill was filed August 31, 1882, and
alleged that on the second of June, 1877, the Memphis & Charleston Company executed what purported to be a lease of its railroad and appurtenances to the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Company for a period of 20 years from July 1, 1877; that this lease was modified in some particulars December 2, 1879; that neither the lease nor the modification were within the corporate power or authority of either of the parties thereto; that, notwithstanding this, the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Company had taken possession of and was operating the leased railroad; that Grayson, the complainant, was not present, either in person or by proxy, at any meeting of the stockholders of the Memphis & Charleston Company, if any there ever had been, when the lease was authorized or approved; that he had never consented thereto, and his rights as a stockholder 'are in nowise affected by any such action of a stockholders' meeting at which he was not present, in which he did not participate, and in which his stock was not represented,--such action beingultra vires, and without legal authority;' that at a meeting of the stockholders of the Memphis & Charleston Company on the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP