Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
STEWART v. WASHINGTON AND ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, 1902 — 187 U.S. 466 · caselaw · US
Corporations
STEWART v. WASHINGTON AND ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY
187 U.S. 46647 L. Ed. 261·Supreme Court of the United States·1902
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
STEWART v. WASHINGTON AND ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
APPEAL EEOM THE DISTRICT OOUBT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.
No. 13.
Argued December 8, 1902.
Decided January 5, 1902.
In an action similar to the preceding, Corpus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Company, p. 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.
This case was argued by the same counsel as appeared in No. 10, p. 458, ante.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Brewer]
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
Aff/rmed.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.