« EelmineJätka »
GENERAL CORPORATION ACT
As ACT CONCERNING CORPORATIONS (REVISION OF 1896) AND THE VARIOUS
TO BUSINESS COMPANIES.
EDITION OF 1903.
66 NASSAU STREET.
Orenton, Jan. 15, 1903
Such forms contained in this volume as are required by
Secretary of State.
COPYRIGHT, 1901, BY JAMES B. DILL.
COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY JAMES B. DILL.
Since the publication of the edition of 1902 legislation has advanced and developed along fixed lines, but without involving any alteration in the general policy of the corporate scheme of New Jersey.
The Permanency of New Jersey's Corporation Laws.-In the Michigan Law Review for December, 1902, Horace L. Wilgus, Professor of Law in the University of Michigan, and author of Wilgus on Private Corporations, says New Jersey is "the "state that has had the most liberal and consistently and
competently worked out corporate policy extending over a “series of years of any state of the Union.
“ This is the only state that seems yet to have consistently “and adequately worked out a corporate policy that compares "at all with the care that has been given to the subject in "England; the New Jersey policy, however, is much more “liberal than the English ; and whatever one may think of “the policy, one must commend the manner in which it has “been formulated, amended and applied through the hands “of experts, continually following a definite plan and policy, “instead of being a mere hotch-potch of inconsistent, uncon“nected provisions, often without plan, and frequently with as little sense.”
Interim Legislation.—The interim legislation since the last publication relates to the conversion of preferred stock into bonds (Sec. 18a, p. 43), broadening the powers of corporations to issue bonds, and to the removal of restrictions upon the right of the corporation to put the bonds upon the market at the market price (Sec. 49a, p. 92 and notes).
Interim Decisions.—The question of the relative rights of the majority and minority stockholders is to-day a much discussed topic. Any tendency of majority stockholders to override the rights of minority stockholders must be carefully guarded against; nevertheless, the majority stockholders sometimes have rights, even as against the dissentient minority. The attention of corporation lawyers is being directed to the great question of how and when the rights of