Stackpole v. Seymour
This text of 127 Mass. 104 (Stackpole v. Seymour) 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.
Opinion
Independently of the objection that the corporation has not been made a party to the proceeding, nor had any notice thereof, this is not a proper case for granting a writ of mandamus. No public interest or corporate right is in question. If the petitioners have suffered any private injury by an illegal refusal to record the transfer and issue to them a certificate of the shares which they have purchased, they have an adequate and complete remedy by action for damages. Murray v. Stevens, 110 Mass. 95, and cases there cited.
In American Railway-Frog Co. v. Haven, 101 Mass. 398, the application, as observed in the opinion, was not by a private stockholder, but by the corporation itself to protect it in the enjoyment of its chartered rights and to secure to it the benefit of a legal organization. The Queen v. Shropshire Union Railways, L. R. 8 Q. B. 420, was submitted on a case stated, no question of the form of remedy was made, and the judgment in the Exchequer Chamber, ordering a writ of mandamus to issue, was contrary to the judgment in the Queen’s Bench, and was reversed in the House of Lords. L. R. 7 H. L. 496.
Petition dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
127 Mass. 104, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stackpole-v-seymour-mass-1879.