Burget v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 24 January 1902 |
| Docket Number | 404. |
| Parties | BURGET v. ROBINSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
John Corcoran and William B. Sullivan (Crosby & Nixon, on the briefs), for plaintiff in error.
Stiles W. Burr (John W. Saxe, on the briefs), for defendant in error.
Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, District Judge.
This suit was brought to enforce the liability of the defendant below as a stockholder in a corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota. The judgment of the circuit court was against him, and thereupon he sued out this writ of error. With the exception of a single particular, the case involves questions disposed of by us in Hale v. Hardon, 37 C.C.A. 240, 95 F. 747, and is determined by it.
It is not necessary to consider the proposition made by the defendant below that certain legislation of Minnesota, subsequent to his acquiring the stock in the corporation in question, is ineffectual, because, independently of that, the principles asserted in Hale v. Hardon are sufficient to sustain the judgment, unless the defendant below is entitled to an offset as a general creditor of the corporation. He is admittedly a general creditor for a larger amount than that claimed from him as a stockholder. Nevertheless, in order to lay the foundation of a right of set-off, either at law or in equity, the claims pro and con must be in the same interest. A trustee, enforcing a claim in behalf of his trust, is not subject to set-off of the claims of the debtor of the trust against the trustee individually. In the present case, the plaintiff below stands as the representative of the creditors of the corporation, and not of the corporation itself, so that the cross demands are not in the same interest within the rules applicable to set-offs. The underlying principle which applies in this respect has been so many times, and so thoroughly and broadly, stated by the supreme court, that it is not necessary for us to explain them further.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with interest, and the costs of appeal are awarded to the defendant in error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Love
... ... meaning and purpose of the statute involved, and to that ... extent, we may say, is persuasive as to the true meaning of ... Robinson, ... Revenue Agent v. Texas Oil Company, 141 Miss. 336; ... L. H. Conrad Furniture Co. v. Miss. State Tax Commission, 133 ... E. C ... settled by all the decided cases ... Reimers ... v. Larson, 40 A. L. R. 1177, 1184; Robinson v ... Brown, 126 F. 429; Burget v. Robinson, 51 C. C ... A. 488, 113 F. 669; Hale v. Calder, 113 F. 670; ... Swicord v. Crawford, 148 Ga. 719, 98 S.E. 343, 23 ... Ga.App ... ...
-
Anderson v. Love
...be clearly settled by all the decided cases. Reimers v. Larson, 40 A. L. R. 1177, 1184; Robinson v. Brown, 126 F. 429; Burget v. Robinson, 51 C. C. A. 488, 113 F. 669; Hale v. Calder, 113 F. 670; Swicord v. Crawford, 148 Ga. 719, 98 S.E. 343, 23 Ga.App. 522, 98 S.E. 817; Farmers State Bank ......
-
Burget v. Robinson
...The judgment below was against the plaintiff in error, who was the defendant below. That judgment was affirmed by us on January 24, 1902 (51 C.C.A. 488, 113 F. 669), which was the October, 1901, term of this court. On October 20, 1902, which was after the close of our October term, 1901, th......
-
Austin Powder Co. v. Commercial Lead Co.
...such liability, the defendant cannot set off an indebtedness due from the corporation to him.—(C. C. A., Mass., 1902) Burget v. Robinson, 113 F. 669, 51 C. C. A. 488; (C. C., R. I., 1902) Hale v. Calder, 113 F. [e] (U. S. C. C. A., Wash., 1897) A stockholder cannot set off a debt of the cor......