Pratt v. Boston & Albany Railroad

126 Mass. 443, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 289
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 3, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 126 Mass. 443 (Pratt v. Boston & Albany Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pratt v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 126 Mass. 443, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 289 (Mass. 1879).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The bill alleges, and the demurrer admits, that, without any negligence or any authority of the plaintiff, a certificate of five shares owned by her in the defendant corporation, having indorsed thereon a forged power of attorney to Brown to transfer the shares to Richardson, Hill & Company, was presented and surrendered by Brown to the corporation, and the shares were transferred by Brown to Richardson, Hill & Company, and that the corporation thereupon issued a new certificate for these shares to Richardson, Hill ¿5 Company, who claim to hold the same. The bill does not seek to cancel that certificate, or ask for any relief which may require a decree against Richardson, Hill & Company, or against Brown; but prays that the corpora^ tian may procure five shares of its capital stock, and record and issue to the plaintiff a certificate thereof, and pay to her the dividends thereon.

The corporation by its unauthorized and illegal act has clearly made itself liable to the plaintiff; and her right to maintain this bill against the corporation is wholly independent of the questions whether it has also made itself liable to Richardson, Hill & Company upon the new certificate, and whether it can maintain any action against them or against Brown by reason of their having obtained that certificate by means of a forged paper. It was therefore rightly held that neither of them was a necessary [445]*445party to the bill. Pratt v. Taunton Copper Co. 123 Mass. 110. Machinists' Bank v. Field, ante, 345. Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 109 Mass. 115. Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125 Mass. 138. Telegraph Co. v. Davenport, 97 U. S. 369. Dalton v. Midland Railway, 12 C. B. 458. Duncan v. Luntley, 2 Macn. & Gord. 30; S. C. 2 Hall & Twells, 78. Taylor v. Midland Railway, 28 Beav. 287, and 8 H. L. Cas. 751.

Decree affirmed

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

Related

Hiller v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
84 N.E.2d 548 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Fiala v. Connecticut Electric Service Co.
158 A. 211 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
Prince v. Childs Co.
23 F.2d 605 (Second Circuit, 1928)
Rand v. Hercules Powder Co.
129 Misc. 891 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)
Gandia v. Porto Rico Fertilizer Co.
291 F. 18 (First Circuit, 1923)
Wilson v. Colorado Mining Co.
227 F. 721 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Jenkins v. Eliot
78 N.E. 431 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay
45 N.E. 534 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)
Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay
62 Ill. App. 55 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1896)
Keller v. Eureka Brick Machine Manufacturing Co.
43 Mo. App. 84 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
Commonwealth v. Reading Savings Bank
137 Mass. 431 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Moores v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Piqua
111 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 Mass. 443, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-boston-albany-railroad-mass-1879.