Auer v. Lombard, 146.

Decision Date15 February 1896
Docket Number146.
PartiesAUER et al. v. LOMBARD et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Henry W. King and Charles M. Rice, for appellants.

Robert M. Morse and John Duff (Edgar S. Hill with them on brief) for appellees.

Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and WEBB, District Judges.

PUTNAM Circuit Judge.

This is a bill in equity brought by a part of the creditors of a savings bank, established under the laws of the state of Colorado, in behalf of themselves and of such other creditors as may desire to join them, against a portion of the shareholders of the corporation. The bank was incorporated June 8, 1887, and the bill was filed February 28, 1895. A statute of the state of Colorado, enacted in 1877, provided as follows:

'The officers and stockholders of every banking corporation or association formed under the provisions of this act shall be individually liable for all debts contracted during the term of their being officers or stockholders of such corporation, equally and ratably to the extent of their respective share of stock in any such corporation or association, except that when any stockholder shall sell and transfer his stock, such liability shall cease at the expiration of one year from and after the date of such sale and transfer. ' Gen. St. 1883, c. 19, Sec. 43.

By a subsequent section this enactment was made applicable to the officers and stockholders of savings banks. In 1885 the following statute was also enacted:

'Section 1. Shareholders in banks, savings banks, trust, deposit and security associations, shall be held individually responsible for debts, contracts, and engagements of said association in double the amount of the par value of the stock owned by them respectively.
'Sec. 2. Any and all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby, repealed. ' Laws 1885, p. 264.

The respondents are all citizens of the state of Massachusetts, and there are no other shareholders residing or found within the district of Massachusetts, and none others are sought to be made parties to the bill. The demand against one respondent is $1,000, against another $2,000, and against each of the others in excess of the latter sum. The claim is stated as a joint demand against each respondent, as follows:

'And the plaintiffs say that said defendants, by virtue of the provisions of said law, are severally indebted to them in double the amount of the par value of the stock hereinbefore set forth as having been owned by them respectively, to wit: that the defendant Lewis Lombard is indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount of three thousand dollars; that the defendant B. Lombard, Jr., is indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount of ten thousand dollars; that the defendant Irving Wood is indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount of two thousand dollars; and that the defendant Darius Wood is indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount of one thousand dollars.'

The amount of all the debts due all the complainants would, if recovered, exhaust the amounts thus demanded, but no debt due any complainant exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The first questions, therefore, are whether, on this showing, a circuit court of the United States can take jurisdiction of any part of this controversy; and, if yes, of what part.

The earlier of these two statutes required an apportionment among stockholders. In many jurisdictions, if not in all, this would involve a bill in equity with an accounting of all the corporate liabilities and a contribution by the stockholders and for this the further making the corporation, and perhaps all stockholders, parties. Thus, serious difficulties arose touching the jurisdiction in cases where there were nonresident stockholders; and it is a matter of common knowledge, with reference to Western states like Colorado, that a large proportion of the local financial corporations have shareholders of that class. Consequently, proceedings under statutes like the earlier one referred to involved great doubts and difficulties; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Hancock Nat. Bank v. Ellis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 23 September 1898
    ...79 F. 951, 82 F. 269; McVickar v. Jones, 70 F. 754; Rhodes v. Bank, 13 C.C.A. 612, 66 F. 512; Bank v. Rindge, 57 F. 279. See Auer v. Lombard, 19 C.C.A. 72, 72 F. 209; Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. (U.S.C.C.Pa. May 7, 1898) 87 F. These decisions are in ......
  • United States v. Freeman
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • 30 November 1937
    ...of Judge Parker in the Broderick Case and was also noticed in Brusselback v. Cago Corporation, supra. Defendants have cited Auer v. Lombard (C.C.A.) 72 F. 209, as supporting their contention that plaintiffs' only recourse is to an action at law. It will be noted that the court recognized th......
  • Neet v. Holmes
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 21 May 1940
    ...Co., D.C., 229 F. 576; International Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Fessenden, C.C., 131 F. 493; In re Williams, D.C., 120 F. 34; Auer v. Lombard, 1 Cir., 72 F. 209; The Hungaria, D.C., 41 F. 109; Pentlarge v. Kirby, C.C., 20 F. 898; Cooper v. New Haven Steam-Boat Co., D.C., 18 F. 588; Humboldt ......
  • Oklahoma Utilities Co. v. City of Hominy
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Northern District of Oklahoma
    • 25 March 1933
    ...C. A.) 119 F. 315, 59 L. R. A. 604; Johnston v. City of Pittsburg (C. C.) 106 F. 753, and see, also, the notes in decision Auer v. Lombard (72 F. 209) 19 C. C. A. 72. Passing now to a consideration of Ordinance No. 102, the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma has held that an agreement t......
  • 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