Stewart v. Washington & Alaska Steamship Co., 187 U.S. 466 (1902)

U.S. Supreme Court

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 and Alaska Steamship Company

No. 13

Argued December 8, 1902

Decided January 6, 1902

187 U.S. 466

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.