Hudnutt v. Britannia Mining Co.

Ninth Circuit

Hudnutt v. Britannia Mining Co.

133 F. 1020, 66 C.C.A. 679, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4483

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 1904

DocketNo. 1,018

StatusPublished

This text of 133 F. 1020 (Hudnutt v. Britannia Mining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudnutt v. Britannia Mining Co., 133 F. 1020, 66 C.C.A. 679, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4483 (9th Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWLEY, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity, brought by appellant to compel appellee to issue and deliver to him certificates for certain shares of the capital stock of the corporation, appellee herein, and for judgment against said corporation for certain sums of money declared as dividends upon said stock. The court below, upon the pleadings and proofs herein, ordered, adjudged, and decreed “that the bill of complaint be dismissed, and the prayer of the said bill be denied, and that the defendant herein have and recover its costs.” From this decree the appeal is taken. This suit is similar to that of Moore v. Nickey (just decided) 133 Fed. 289, in many of its facts, and is substantially identical in relation to the question of laches, which was there discussed and decided. Upon the authority of that case upon this question, the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

HAWLEY, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity, brought by appellant to compel appellee to issue and deliver to him certificates for certain shares of the capital stock of the corporation, appellee herein, and for judgment against said corporation for certain sums of money declared as dividends upon said stock. The court below, upon the pleadings and proofs herein, ordered, adjudged, and decreed “that the bill of complaint be dismissed, and the prayer of the said bill be denied, and that the defendant herein have and recover its costs.” From this decree the appeal is taken. This suit is similar to that of Moore v. Nickey (just decided) 133 Fed. 289, in many of its facts, and is substantially identical in relation to the question of laches, which was there discussed and decided. Upon the authority of that case upon this question, the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F. 1020, 66 C.C.A. 679, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudnutt-v-britannia-mining-co-ca9-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack