Stewart v. Washington & Alaska Steamship Co., 187 U.S. 466 (1902)
U.S. Supreme Court
Stewart v. Washington & Alaska Steamship Co., 187 U.S. 466 (1902)Stewart v. Washington and Alaska Steamship Company
No. 13
Argued December 8, 1902
Decided January 6, 1902
187 U.S. 466
Syllabus
In an action similar to the preceding, Corbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Company, p. 187 U. S. 455, ante, brought by a stockholder to restrain a corporation from paying certain taxes in which the bill does not show where the directors reside and does not contain any averment of an application to the directors; or to the president and treasurer, to take action to relieve from the burden of the taxes, the bill was properly dismissed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Stewart v. Washington & Alaska Steamship Co., 187 U.S. 466 (1902)Stewart v. Washington and Alaska Steamship Company
No. 13
Argued December 8, 1902
Decided January 6, 1902
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Syllabus
In an action similar to the preceding, Corbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Company, p. 187 U. S. 455, ante, brought by a stockholder to restrain a corporation from paying certain taxes in which the bill does not show where the directors reside and does not contain any averment of an application to the directors; or to the president and treasurer, to take action to relieve from the burden of the taxes, the bill was properly dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case resembles the preceding, in that it was a suit by a stockholder to restrain a corporation from paying certain taxes. The corporation, its president, and treasurer, were made defendants. The bill alleges that the two officers reside in the City of Tacoma, in the State of Washington; that to them is entrusted the general control and management of the business of the corporation. Where the directors reside is not shown, and there is no averment of any application to the directors, or to the president and treasurer, to take action to relieve from the burden of the taxes. Under these circumstances, the district court properly dismissed the suit, and its judgment is
Affirmed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the decision of this case.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
