George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased, Etc. v. Northern Pacific Railway Company

D.C. Circuit

George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased, Etc. v. Northern Pacific Railway Company

223 F.2d 316, 96 U.S. App. D.C. 24, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3958

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 14, 1955·No. 12428_1·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, acting as a committee of minority stockholders of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, a federal corporation organized and existing under an act of Congress of July 2, 1864, 1 brought this civil action. The gravamen of the complaint was that a reorganization of the railroad in 1896 was illegal. Appellants said they had protested the reorganization continuously since that date. However that may be, they did not seek judicial remedy until they brought the present action in 1950. 2 In the District Court Judge Tamm, with a careful and exhaustive opinion, 3 concluded that the action was barred by laches. We agree and have nothing to add to his discussion of the matter.

Affirmed.

1

. 13 Stat. 365.

2

. A suit was brought in the Southern District of New York in 1900 by one Hoover, not of appellants’ committee. It was allowed to die for want of prosecution in 1939, and a motion to reinstate it was denied for inexcusable laches.

3

. Landell v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 122 F.Supp. 253 (D.C.D.C.1954).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, acting as a committee of minority stockholders of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, a federal corporation organized and existing under an act of Congress of July 2, 1864, 1 brought this civil action. The gravamen of the complaint was that a reorganization of the railroad in 1896 was illegal. Appellants said they had protested the reorganization continuously since that date. However that may be, they did not seek judicial remedy until they brought the present action in 1950. 2 In the District Court Judge Tamm, with a careful and exhaustive opinion, 3 concluded that the action was barred by laches. We agree and have nothing to add to his discussion of the matter.

Affirmed.

1

. 13 Stat. 365.

2

. A suit was brought in the Southern District of New York in 1900 by one Hoover, not of appellants’ committee. It was allowed to die for want of prosecution in 1939, and a motion to reinstate it was denied for inexcusable laches.

3

. Landell v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 122 F.Supp. 253 (D.C.D.C.1954).

George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased, Etc. v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, 223 F.2d 316, 96 U.S. App. D.C. 24, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3958 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

223 F.2d 316 (George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased, Etc. v. Northern Pacific Railway Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related