Stokes v. Continental Trust Co. of City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
186 N.Y. 285, 78 N.E. 1090 (1906)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Continental Trust Co. of City of New York (Continental) (defendant) is a New York corporation, organized in 1890 with 5,000 shares with the par value of $100 each. Stokes (plaintiff) is an original shareholder, holding 221 shares of stock in the corporation. Blair & Co., a private banking firm, offered that if Continental doubled its capital stock from $500,000 to $1,000,000, consisting of 5,000 additional shares, Blair would then purchase the new stock at $450 per share. In January 1902 Continental’s stockholders, including Stokes, met and agreed to increase the stock. Stokes then demanded from Continental the right to subscribe and pay for another 221 shares of the new stock at par. His demand was refused. The majority of the stockholders also voted to sell the new stock to Blair & Co., which Stokes voted against. The trial court held that Stokes had the right to subscribe for a proportionate number of shares of the new stock as he held of the old stock, that the stockholders and directors could not deprive them of that right, and that Stokes was entitled to the difference between the market value of the shares as of January 1902, which was $550 per share, and their par value, for a total of $99,450. The court of appeals reversed, and Stokes appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
