|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
614 THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.
three-fourths, then, in stating the authority was given, the answer,
in substance, does not undertake to allege, that the consent of the
three-fourths was obtained. That is, in other words, the defen-
dants would not, or could not state how the authority was given.
The act of incorporation is explicit, that the property shall not
be mortgaged or sold without the assent of three-fourths of the
^stockholders holding three-fourths of the stock. The complain-
ants assert, they did not consent, and they represent an interest
larger than one-fourth. The defendants, in their answer, do not
•assert, that they, the complainants, ever did assent; or that they
had any knowledge of the transactions between them and Caton,
who undertook to pledge the funds; an undertaking beyond his
power; and, which the defendants would have discovered, had
they examined the charter. They were bound, in regard to their
own interests, to have examined it, and having done so, and per-
ceived the guarded manner in which the affairs of the corporation
were to be conducted, and the restrictions imposed against selling
or pledging, before they advanced their money to Caton, they
should have seen the authority under which they acted. It was
useless in the extreme to guard against mortgages and sales, if the
president of the corporation, at his will and pleasure, had power
to go into a court of justice and confess judgment to any amount.
The judgments themselves bound the property; and a sale might
be effected under a fieri facias issued thereon, and of course a
mortgage or pledge, and consequent sale obtained.
On the part of the defendants it is said the want of an answer
by Caton should not affect their interests; the complainants, and
not them, should compel him to answer. What effect Caton's
answer may have, it is impossible to say; nor must the complain-
ants, from this time forward, cease to use the necessary process of
the court to compel an answer; should unnecessary delay take
place, an order, perhaps, different from the one about to be passed,
may be made. On the whole the injunction is continued until
final hearing or further order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert and John Oliver, by their petition, stated, that the in-
junction had been issued without requiring the plaintiffs to give
bond to abide the final decision on the bill, which ought to have
been required before the injunction issued. They therefore prayed,
that these plaintiffs might be ordered to give bond by an appointed
time, or that the injunction be dissolved, &c. Whereupon it was,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
