Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia Iron & Steel Co.

Citation46 F. 336
PartiesBELMONT NAIL CO. v. COLUMBIA IRON & STEEL CO.
Decision Date07 May 1891
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

P. C Knox, for complainant, and the motion.

A. M Imbrie, for Huckenstein.

Geo Shiras, Jr., for Totten & Hogg Iron & Steel Foundry Company opposed.

Before ACHESON, C.J., and REED, J.

REED J.

The receiver was appointed April 9, 1891, upon the motion of the plaintiff, who had filed the bill for itself and such others of the creditors of the defendant company who might join as plaintiffs. The second prayer of the bill is that the property of the defendant be decreed to be a trust fund for the benefit of all its creditors; that an account be taken of all the debts of the defendant and the assets of the corporation; that the assets be applied in payment of the indebtedness of the defendant in proportion to the whole thereof; that the defendant be enjoined from disposing of its assets; that a receiver may be appointed to take the trust fund, and distribute it among the several creditors who shall come in and prove their claims under the decree to be obtained, with power to hold, operate, and sell the said property of the defendant under the decree of the court. On April 14, 1891, John Huckenstein, claiming to be a creditor of the defendant, presented his petition, praying to be permitted to become a party to the proceedings, and joined as a plaintiff. To this petition an answer was filed by the defendant, in which he is admitted to be a creditor, but not to the amount claimed by him. Pending a decision on his petition, the plaintiff, on May 1, 1891, made a motion for leave to dismiss his bill, to which defendant's counsel consents, but which is opposed by Mr. Huckenstein. Subsequent to that motion, but prior to its argument, the Totten & Hogg Iron & Steel Foundry Company presented a petition, alleging that they are creditors of the defendant, and asking to be joined as plaintiffs. To this no answer has been filed. This creditor also opposed the dismissal of the bill. Both John Huckenstein and the foundry company should be permitted to join as plaintiffs. The bill having been filed as a bill for the benefit of creditors generally, the relief demanded being for the benefit of all, any creditor has a right to become a party plaintiff upon application to the court. Fost. Fed. Pr. pp. 88, 290; Forbes v. Railroad Co., 2 Woods, 334; Campbell v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 368. The question then remains whether the original plaintiff can move for and obtain leave to dismiss the bill, the defendant consenting, but the other creditors, who have asked leave to join, objecting. The rights of John Huckenstein should date back to the filing of his petition, which was before the motion to dismiss was made by the original plaintiff, and therefore, as co-plaintiff, his consent is requisite before dismissal of the bill solely upon the ground of consent of parties. But it is doubtful whether the original plaintiff could dismiss the bill, after the appointment of the receiver, without the consent of the other creditors. 'After a decree has been made of such a kind that other persons besides the parties on the record are interested in the prosecution of it, neither the plaintiff, nor defendant, on the consent of the other, can obtain an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Seigle v. First Nat. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 7 de fevereiro de 1936
    ... ... 507; Tachna v ... Pressed Steel Car Co., 164 A. 413; Suring State Bank v ... Giese, 85 ... considered are Belmont Mail Co. v. Columbia Iron & Steel ... Co., 46 F. 336; ... ...
  • Monmouth Inv. Co. v. Means
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 22 de dezembro de 1906
    ... ... 628; Henderson v. Goode (C.C.) 49 F. 887; ... Belmont Nail Company v. Columbia Iron & Steel Company ... (C.C.) ... ...
  • Illinois Steel Co. v. Ramsey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 29 de janeiro de 1910
    ... ... New Jersey Southern Ry ... Co., 25 N.J.Eq. 13; Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia ... Iron & Steel Co. (C.C.) 46 F. 336; Cook, ... ...
  • Mathews v. Am. Tobacco Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • 19 de dezembro de 1941
    ...of the rights and interests of the added co-plaintiff. Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 99 N.Y. 194, 1 N.E. 663; Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia Iron & Steel Co. (C.C.) 46 F. 336." See Earl v. Brewer, 1936, 248 App.Div. 314, 289 N.Y.S. 150. In Dresdner v. Goldman Sachs Trading Corp., 240 App.Div. 242......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT