Re James Pollitz, No. 16

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFuller
Citation51 L.Ed. 1081,27 S.Ct. 729,206 U.S. 323
Docket NumberNo. 16,O
Decision Date27 May 1907
PartiesRE JAMES POLLITZ, Petitioner. riginal

206 U.S. 323
27 S.Ct. 729
51 L.Ed. 1081
RE JAMES POLLITZ, Petitioner.
No. 16, Original.
Argued April 8, 1907.
Decided May 27, 1907.

James Pollitz, a citizen of the state of New York, brought suit in the supreme court of the state of New York for the county of New York against the Wabash Railroad Company, a consolidated railroad corporation existing under the laws of the states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri, and a citizen of the state of Ohio; and sundry other defendants, chiefly citizens and residents of the state of New York, being individual directors of the railroad company; the trust company, registrar of the stock of the railroad company; a committee representing debenture holders; mortgage trustees, etc. The complaint alleged in substance that the railroad company, in 1906, entered into certain negotiations for the retirement of the debenture mortgage bonds of the company through the issue of other securities, both bonds and stocks, and that the plan to accomplish that end was subsequently authorized and approved by the stockholders of the company and debenture mortgage bondholders, at a meeting at Toledo, October 22, 1906, at which the issue of certain new bonds and preferred and common stock of the company and the exchange of certain new bonds, preferred and common stock, for the company's debenture mortgage bonds, was authorized and approved. The complaint alleged that the plan of exchange was unlawful, unauthorized, and contrary to the laws of the states in which

Page 324

the company was organized, and was unjust, inequitable, and injurious to complainant, who claimed to be the owner of one thousand shares of the common capital stock of the railroad company. It was also alleged that 90 per cent of the debenture holders voted in favor of the exchange, and that the plan had been carried out as to more than nine tenths of the debenture bonds, and new bonds and stocks to the requisite amount had been issued. And it was prayed that the plan 'be decreed and adjudged to be utr a vires, and that all said bonds and the preferred and common stock, used and issued and applied by the said Wabash Railroad Company for the purpose and plan of said scheme, be decreed and adjudged of no effect.' The complaint prayed in the alternative that if the court should decree that Pollitz was not entitled to the main relief he had asked, then that he might have an accounting by the defendant officers and directors of the railroad company, etc., in respect of the new bonds and common and preferred stock which had been issued under the plan of exchange.

The railroad company filed its petition to remove the case into the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, which set forth in substance the foregoing matters, and further averred:

'That your petitioner disputes the claim against it as set forth by the plaintiff in his complaint, and denies that the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment and relief prayed for against this petitioner or to any judgment or relief against it; and this petitioner alleges that the fundamental and primary controversy, as set forth in said complaint, is whether or not the plan for the exchange of the debenture mortgage bonds by this petitioner, the authorization and creation by it of the new securities in the said complaint set forth, and the issue of the same by it for the purpose of carrying said plan into effect, is, as alleged in said complaint, illegal, unlawful, void, and prohibited by the charter of this petitioner and the laws under which it is incorporated; and whether said new se-

Page 325

curities are, as alleged in said complaint, invalid and void; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • City of Clarksdale v. Harris, 34203
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1940
    ...since such a duty is not ministerial. Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 15 L.Ed. 565; In re Humes, 149 U.S. 192, 37 L.Ed. 698; In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 51 L.Ed. 1081; McCrea v. Roberts, 89 Md. 238, 44 L. R. A. 485; Marcum v. Ballot Coms., 42 W.Va. 263, 36 L. R. A. 296; In re Rice, 155 U.S. 3......
  • Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 1,658.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 10 Agosto 1912
    ...to remand a cause after it has once refused a motion to that effect'; which principle was reannounced and adhered to in Re James Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323 (27 Sup.Ct. 51 L.Ed. 1081), * * * and in Ex parte Gruetter, 217 U.S. 586 (30 Sup.Ct. 690, 54 L.Ed. 892). * * * That this is the proper const......
  • Evaporated Milk Ass'n v. Roche, No. 10034.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 12 Septiembre 1942
    ...U.S., at page 326 of 31 S.Ct., 55 L.Ed. 252, 37 L.R.A.,N.S., 392, reaffirmed its ruling in the preceding identical case of In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331, 27 S.Ct. 729, 51 L.Ed. 1081. The Court states the rule so "The court in the Pollitz case, after stating (206 U.S. p. 331 27 S.Ct. 729,......
  • Sagara v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 5,682.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • 12 Junio 1911
    ...to remand a cause after it has once refused a motion to that effect;' which principle was reannounced and adhered to in Re James Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 27 Sup.Ct. 729, 51 L.Ed. 1081: 'Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the court below to decide the matter before it in a particular way or t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • City of Clarksdale v. Harris, 34203
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1940
    ...since such a duty is not ministerial. Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 15 L.Ed. 565; In re Humes, 149 U.S. 192, 37 L.Ed. 698; In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 51 L.Ed. 1081; McCrea v. Roberts, 89 Md. 238, 44 L. R. A. 485; Marcum v. Ballot Coms., 42 W.Va. 263, 36 L. R. A. 296; In re Rice, 155 U.S. 3......
  • Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 1,658.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 10 Agosto 1912
    ...to remand a cause after it has once refused a motion to that effect'; which principle was reannounced and adhered to in Re James Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323 (27 Sup.Ct. 51 L.Ed. 1081), * * * and in Ex parte Gruetter, 217 U.S. 586 (30 Sup.Ct. 690, 54 L.Ed. 892). * * * That this is the proper const......
  • Evaporated Milk Ass'n v. Roche, No. 10034.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 12 Septiembre 1942
    ...U.S., at page 326 of 31 S.Ct., 55 L.Ed. 252, 37 L.R.A.,N.S., 392, reaffirmed its ruling in the preceding identical case of In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331, 27 S.Ct. 729, 51 L.Ed. 1081. The Court states the rule so "The court in the Pollitz case, after stating (206 U.S. p. 331 27 S.Ct. 729,......
  • Sagara v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 5,682.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • 12 Junio 1911
    ...to remand a cause after it has once refused a motion to that effect;' which principle was reannounced and adhered to in Re James Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 27 Sup.Ct. 729, 51 L.Ed. 1081: 'Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the court below to decide the matter before it in a particular way or t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT