Pierce v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co.
John H. Pierce, and v. The Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Company, and
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Upon the filing of the bill of complaint herein, application was made for an injunction and for the appointment of a receiver. Both applications were denied, for reasons set forth in an opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson, reported in 67 N. J. Eq. (1 Robb.) 399.
Answers having been filed, the cause'proceeded to final hearing, whereupon 'a decree was made dismissing the bill, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant herein to file a bill *451 to restrain the Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Company and its directors from diverting, misapplying or mismanaging the so-called “segregated assets,” described in the bill of complaint, and from carrying out any contracts which the complainants may -have- a right to declare void. See second opinion of Vice-Chancellor Stevenson, reported in 72 N. J. Eq. (2 Buch.) 595.
We concur in the views expressed by the learned vice-chancellor so far as they are pertinent to the questions raised by the present appeal, and the decree under review should- therefore be affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance-Tnis, .Chancellor, Chibe-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iard, Parker, Bergen, Voori-iees, Min-turn, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vkoom, Green, Gray, Dill —15. For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.