Squair v. Lookout Mountain Co.
Decision Date | 17 June 1890 |
Citation | 42 F. 729 |
Parties | SQUAIR v. LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
The complainant alleges that he is a stockholder in the Lookout Mountain Company; that said company was organized as a statutory real-estate and immigration corporation under the laws of Tennessee, with a capital stock of $1,000,000, but that only $600,000 of said stock were subscribed for; that about 700 acres of land were purchased by the company upon the top and sides of Lookout mountain, valued at $600,000. Books for the subscription of stock were opened, and $600,000 of the stock only was authorized to be subscribed for and issued, but the remaining $400,000 of the stock has never been subscribed for or issued. It is further alleged that the individual defendants are seven of the nine directors of the company, and that they hold a majority of the stock of the company. Complainant avers that he is the owner of 143 shares of the stock of the company, each share being $100; that 133 of these shares were transferred to him July 14, 1887; that on the 28th of July, 1887, the other defendants, by some fraudulent and unauthorized scheme or contrivance, undertook to transfer and issue to the Chattanooga & Lookout Mountain Railway Company the $400,000 of stock in the Lookout Mountain Company which had not been subscribed for. It is charged that those defendants intended at the time this stock was so issued and donated to become stockholders in the Chattanooga & Lookout Railway Company, and that they did become such, and become seven of the railway company's nine directors, so that this stock is now claimed by these defendants, who it is alleged constitute a majority of the directors, and own a majority of the stock in both corporations. The Chattanooga & Lookout Mountain Railway Company is a Tennessee corporation, and the defendants are citizens of Tennessee. The complainant is a citizen of Ohio and alleges that he had no notice of these transactions until May 28, 1890. The present matter for consideration is whether an injunction shall issue restraining any transfer or incumbrance of the stock. Defendants insist that this court has no jurisdiction of the cause, and that, so far from an injunction being awarded, the bill should be dismissed.
The first question with which we are confronted does not arise upon the merits of the case made in the bill, but whether the allegations of the bill are such as are necessary to invest this court with jurisdiction of the case. Rule 94 prescribed by the supreme court for equity proceedings in this court says:
In Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U.S. 460, 461, the court says:
The decision and the rule predicated upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baillie v. Columbia Gold Min. Co.
... ... not suffice. Allen v. Wilson (C. C.) 28 F. 677, ... 678-679; Squair v. Lookout Mountain Co. (C. C.) 42 ... F. 729, 732; Watson v. U.S. Refining Co. 68 F. 769, ... ...
-
Pinkus v. Minneapolis Linen Mills and Others
... ... Wilson, 28 F ... 677; Taylor v. South & N. Ala. R. Co., 4 Woods, 575, ... 13 F. 152; Squair v. Lookout Mountain Co., 42 F ... 729; Kitchen v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 69 ... Mo. 224; ... ...
-
Gage v. Riverside Trust Co.
... ... R. Co ... (C.C.) 78 F. 526; Robinson v. W.Va. Loan Co ... (C.C.) 90 F. 770; Squair v. Lookout Mountain ... Co., 42 F. 729; Macon, D. & S.R. co. v ... Shailer, 141 F. 585, 72 ... ...
-
Clarke v. Eastern Building & Loan Ass'n
... ... Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U.S ... 450; Dannmeyer v. Coleman, 11 F. 97; Squair v ... Lookout Mountain Co., 42 F. 729; Ranger v ... Cotton-Press Co., 52 F. 611; Porter v ... ...