Opinion · Njlaw New Jersey

SCOTT v. P. LORILLARD CO., 109 N.J. Eq. 417 (1931)

JAMES H. SCOTT, JR., et al., complainant-respondent, v. P. LORILLARDCOMPANY, a Corp., defendant-appellant., 157 A. 388 (Ct. Err. & App. 1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Njlaw New Jersey
Jurisdiction
Njlaw
Date
1931-12-03
Topic
general

SCOTT v. P. LORILLARD CO., 109 N.J. Eq. 417 (1931) 157 A. 388 JAMES H. SCOTT, JR., et al., complainant-respondent, v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SCOTT v. P. LORILLARD CO., 109 N.J. Eq. 417 (1931). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SCOTTv.P. LORILLARD CO.,109 N.J. Eq. 417(1931)
157 A. 388
JAMES H. SCOTT, JR., et al., complainant-respondent,v.P. LORILLARD
COMPANY, a corporation, defendant-appellant.
Court of Errors and Appeals.
Argued May 27th, 1931.
Decided December 3d 1931.
On appeal from an order of the court of chancery.
Messrs. McCarter English(Mr. Robert H. McCarter, of counsel), andMr. John H. Bocock, of the Virginia bar (on the brief), for the respondents.Messrs. Pitney, Hardin Skinner(Mr. Merrit Lane, Mr.Shelton PitneyandMr. Mahlon Pitney, of counsel), for the appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed. The reasons for our determination are as stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, and reported in108 N.J. Eq. 153;except, however, as to such part thereof as expresses an apprehension that the passage of the disputed by-law by the stockholders was beyond their jurisdiction and was an encroachment on the powers of the board of directors. The vice-chancellor's observations in that respect are not essential to the conclusion reached and as to them we reserve opinion.For affirmance— TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, JJ. 9.
For reversal— CAMPBELL, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 3.
Page 418