Today is November 12, 2013, or 11/12/13.   (It also happens to be my 43rd birthday.  Yay me.) 

In honor of the unique date, I decided to take a look at some business cases from the most recent prior 11/12/13.  I found a couple of  interesting passages.  One case, Cotten v. Tyson, 89 A. 113, 116 (Md. Nov. 12, 1913),  provides a good overview of some basic corporate principals: 

[1] The principle is elementary that a stockholder, as such,
is not an owner of any portion of the property of the corporation and, apart
from his stock, has no interest in its assets which is capable of being
assigned. [citing cases] 

[2] Where one person is the owner of all the capital stock
of a corporation, it has been held bound by his acts in reference to its
property. [citing cases]

[3] But it is entirely clear upon reason and authority that
a stockholder of a corporation, while retaining his stock ownership, cannot
assign the interest represented by his stock in any particular class of the
corporate assets. Such an attempted alienation would not only be incompatible
with the retention of title to the stock in the assignor but its enforcement
would be altogether impracticable. The stockholder himself could not require
the corporation to segregate and distribute a specific portion of its property,
and certainly he could not create and confer such a right by assignment.

[4] . . .Even if a stockholder could
effectively assign an interest in the choses in action of his corporation, such
a result could obviously not be accomplished by a mere assignment of his
interest in the assets of its debtors.

Another, and in contrast, Smith v. Pullum, 63 So. 965 (Ala. Nov. 12, 1913),  provides a  sound example of terrible legal jargon: 

The bill  . . . alleges that it was agreed between the
three parties, viz., G.W. Smith, William Pullum, and W.K. Pullum, that upon the
purchase of the property for the above sum a corporation was to be
formed, with a paid in capital of $4,500; that $1,650 of the said capital stock
was to be the property of W.K. Pullum, $600 of said capital stock was to be the
property of said Wm. Pullum, and $2,250 of said capital stock was to be the
property of said G.W. Smith. 

The case uses the term "said" seventy-five times. It's a four-page case.  

Here's hoping we can dispense with said practice posthaste.