Viewing page 11 of 195

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

The F.H. Smith Company Wins Both Cases in Wilmington, Delaware
 
Application for receivership and petition to revoke charter are both denied.

The following are reproductions of two new articles concerning these cases:

From The Washington Herald March 16, 1930: 

RAICHLE SEES END OF SUITS
NEW YORK, March 15- End of suits to force the F.H. Smith Company, investment bankers, into receivership was forecast today by Frank G. Raichle, counsel for the company.
His statement was based on the decision Friday of Judge Wolcott in the chancery court of Delaware denying a petition for a receivership for the company, and a second petition by the attorney general of the State to revoke the firm's charter.
Raichle's statement said
"Judge Wolcott's decision should end the attempts to throw the Smith Company into receivership. The F.H. Smith Company is a Delaware corporation, and the refusal to appoint a receiver in Delaware precludes the appointment of a receiver in any other court." 
A similar petition for a receivership for the Smith Company filed in the District of Columbia courts was refused some time ago by Judge Wheat. 

From The New York Sun March 15, 1930:

Refuses Receivership For F. H. Smith Co.
A petition for the appointment of an equity receiver for the F. H. Smith Company, mortgage bonds, has been denied by Judge Wolcott of the Chancery court of the State of Delaware, according to announcement made here today by Frank G. Raichle of 41 Broad street, counsel for the Smith company. The decision was made in two suits brought against the defendants, one by R. Satterthwaite, State Attorney-General upon behalf of stockholder, and the second by United States Senator Daniel O. Hastings to dissolve the company.
The company is a Delaware corporation and the refusal to appoint a receiver in that State precludes the appointment of a receiver in any other, according to Mr. Raichle.