Citation network
Handley Vs. Stutz
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 30, 1891
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 417 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Handley v. StutzSearch
-
U.S. 417 (1891) Handley v. StutzSearch
-
adopted did not affect its validity, as most corporate acts can be proved as well by parol as by written entries. Moss v. AverellSearch
-
of such inhibition, the proceedings of such meeting would, within the rule laid down by this Court in Railroad v. CowdreySearch
-
by their action to a dissenting minority, or had taken action prejudicial to the rights of third persons. Ormsby v. VermontSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Hilles v. ParrishSearch
-
that the action taken at such meetings is binding upon those who participate in or take the benefit of them. Heath v. SilverhornSearch
-
capital stock, never having been recorded or published as required by this clause, was void, and the case of Scoville v. ThayerSearch
-
and informality in the proceedings to effect the increase -- such a one, as was said by this Court in Chubb v. UptonSearch
-
a claim upon such contract, in a suit by the corporation, by urging the illegality of its organization. In Veeder v. MudgettSearch
-
to be true only where there was an entire lack of power to do the act so brought in question, and the case of Scoville v. ThayerSearch
-
as the acceptance of the certificates is sufficient evidence of an agreement to pay their par value. Sanger v. UptonSearch
-
Brigham v. MeadSearch
-
Allen 245. Ever since the case of Sawyer v. HoagSearch
-
upon this subject have been frequent and uniform, and no relaxation of the general principle has been admitted. Upton v. TribilcockSearch
-
Graham v. RailroadSearch
-
of such shares, as representing the assets of the corporation. Union Mut. Page 139 U. S. 428 Life Ins. Co. v. FrearSearch
-
in Hatch v. DanaSearch
-
U. S. 205 , and in Hawkins v. GlennSearch
-
business, and the stock thus issued was treated as if it formed a part of the original capital. In County of Morgan v. AllenSearch
-
is subject to exceptions where the transaction is not a mere cover for an illegal increase. Thus, in New Albany v. BurkeSearch
-
So in Coit v. GoldSearch
-
A case nearer in point is that of Clark v. BeverSearch
-
So, in Fogg v. BlairSearch
-
some value, that value, however much less than par, would have been the limit of the holder's liability. In Morrow v. NashvilleSearch
-
prosecution of its business, issue its stock and dispose of it for the best price that can be obtained. Stein v. HowardSearch
-
any legal presumption, have trusted the company upon the faith of the increased stock. First National Bank of Deadwood v. GustinSearch
-
Coit v. N.DSearch
-
and was recognized and held out to the public as part of the capital stock of the company. Under the case of Sawyer v. HoagSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Handley v. StutzSearch
-
Moss v. AverellSearch
-
Railroad v. CowdreySearch
-
Ormsby v. VermontSearch
-
Heath v. SilverhornSearch
-
of Scoville v. ThayerSearch
-
In Veeder v. MudgettSearch
-
of Sawyer v. HoagSearch
-
Life Ins. Co. v. FrearSearch
-
In County of Morgan v. AllenSearch
-
Coit v. GoldSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial