Devine v. Frankford Steel & Forging Co.
Devine v. Frankford Steel & Forging Co.
Opinion of the Court
And now, to wit: February 11, 1903, this case having been argued and considered, it is adjudged and decreed that so much of the injunction as prohibits and enjoins the Tindel-Morris Company and the Frankford Steel & Forging Company, and the officers thereof from in any manner dismantling the plant, removing its machinery or otherwise materially changing its present method of operation until final hearing is affirmed. The rest of the injunction is reversed and dissolved, the appointment of receivers is revoked and they are ordered forthwith to turn over the property to the officers of Frankford Steel & Forging Company and file an account of their transactions.
February 20, 1903:
It appearing that question has arisen as to the extent of the decree of February 11, 1903 .... it is now further adjudged and decreed that the officers of the Frankford Steel & Forging Company are not enjoined from discharging of removing the superintendent and such of the managers, employees and oper-" atives of the said company, including Robert F. Devine, as they may deem expedient, and the said officers shall havé full authority and control over all matters concerning the conduct of the works pursuant to the method of operation which was in existence at the time the special injunction issued.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Devine v. Frankford Steel & Forging Company
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Equity — Injunction—Preliminary injunction — Receiver—Corporation— Intercorporate conspiracy. A bill was filed by a minority stockholder of a corporation for the purpose of setting aside an alleged fraudulent contract between her company and another company, the holders of a majority of shares in both companies being the same. The parties defendant were the two corporations and the persons who held the majority of shares in both companies. The bill alleged that the complainant was induced to vote in favor of the contract at a stockholders’ meeting by reason of certain misrepresentations made to her. The bill charged that plaintiff’s company had been deprived of profits which had been wrongly appropriated by the other company, and that defendants proposed to transfer the business of the first company to the second company. The court entered a decree appointing a receiver and enjoining the officers from in any manner dismantling the plant of the plaintifi’s company, removing its machinery or otherwise materially changing its present method of operation until final hearing. Held, on appeal that the portion of the decree appointing a receiver should be reversed, and that the remainder of the decree should be affirmed, but in such a way as not to enjoin the officers of plaintiff’s company from operating the company or from removing the superintendent and such employees as they might deem expedient.