From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Socorro Mountain Mining Co. v. Preston

Supreme Court, Albany Special Term
May 1, 1896
17 Misc. 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1896)

Opinion

May, 1896.

John H. Peck and E. Countryman, for motion.

Lansing Holmes, opposed.


I think there is a failure to show by competent evidence in the moving papers that this action was not properly commenced in the name of the company by Mr. Darling, the former president.

I think, also, that while the directors might not properly vote to discontinue the action when they were personally interested as defendants, yet that a majority of the stockholders could do so. The latter are not disqualified to vote on a question before the shareholders' meeting because of an interest in the result. They have a right to represent their individual interest, and they are in no sense trustees or representatives of others. Gamble v. Queens County Water Co., 123 N.Y. 91; Bjorngaard v. Goodhue Co. Bank, 52 N.W. Repr. 48; Northwestern Transportation Co. v. Beatty, L.R., 12 App. Cas. 589.

It is claimed that much of the stock which was voted upon by the stockholders at the last annual meeting had not been properly transferred upon the books of the company, which were in the hands of the prior president, Mr. Darling; but, upon his withholding the seal and the stock-book so as to prevent the transfer of the stock thereon, and the issue of new stock in time to permit it to be voted upon at the annual meeting, it was lawful for the directors to adopt and procure a new seal and a new stock-book to accomplish that purpose. In re Argus Co., 138 N.Y. 557, 576.

It appears that this course was pursued, and that a majority of the stockholders, at the annual meeting, voted to discontinue this action, and, pursuant to this direction, the present president and secretary of the company have made a consent to discontinue, upon which this motion is based.

I think that effect must be given to this consent. The action having been properly begun, however, and the plaintiff being insolvent, it should not be discontinued against the consent of plaintiff's attorneys, without securing them for their lawful charges for their services and costs herein.

The motion to discontinue is granted, without costs, upon condition that the plaintiff's attorneys be first settled with and paid for their services and costs herein, and if there is a failure to agree upon the amount thereof a reference will be directed to determine the amount.

Motion granted, without costs.


Summaries of

Socorro Mountain Mining Co. v. Preston

Supreme Court, Albany Special Term
May 1, 1896
17 Misc. 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1896)
Case details for

Socorro Mountain Mining Co. v. Preston

Case Details

Full title:THE SOCORRO MOUNTAIN MINING Co., Plaintiff, v . GEORGE B. PRESTON et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Albany Special Term

Date published: May 1, 1896

Citations

17 Misc. 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1896)
40 N.Y.S. 1040

Citing Cases

People's Trust Co. v. O'Meara

There was no invalidity in the stockholders' vote because of the knowledge, which all of them had, of the…