Fitzgerald v. Weidenbeck
Decision Date | 29 September 1896 |
Citation | 76 F. 695 |
Parties | FITZGERALD v. WEIDENBECK et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Bigelow & Taylor, for complainant
Cobb & Wheelwright and T. D. Merwin, for defendants.
The demurrer of the several defendants to plaintiff's complaint in this action came on for hearing before the court on the first day of the general term begun and holden at the court room in the federal building in the city of Minneapolis, in said district, on Tuesday, the 1st day of September, A.D. 1896, and the several parties appeared by counsel and were heard. The plaintiff, by his complaint seeks to hold the defendants, trustees of the Twin City Butte Mining Company during the year 1894 and ever since, liable for the amount of three judgments obtained in the district court of the Second district of the state of Montana against said company, which is a Montana corporation, upon indebtedness of said company arising on contract, and existing and matured on and prior to October 1, 1894; the personal liability of the defendants being claimed to exist under a section of the Montana statute, under which said company was incorporated, which required that every company or corporation organized under the provisions of such statute should annually, within 20 days from the 1st day of September, make a report, which should state the amount of the capital of such corporation, and the proportion thereof actually paid in, and the amount of existing debts, and which report should be signed by the president and a majority of the trustees of said corporation, and be verified by the oath of the president or secretary of such corporation, and be filed in the office of the clerk of the county where the business of the corporation is carried on; and that, if any company shall fail to make or file such report as above stated, all the trustees of the company shall be jointly and severally liable for the debts of the company then existing and for all that shall be contracted before such report shall be made. And the complaint alleges the fact to be that said Twin City Butte Mining Company did not make or file such report within 20 days from the 1st day of September, A.D 1894, nor at any other time prior to the 3d day of February, A.D. 1895. One of said judgments, for the sum of $1,273.37, was so recovered by the plaintiff against said Twin City Butte Mining Company on December 1, 1894, on causes of action on contract, all existing against said company on and prior to October 1, 1894, in favor of other parties, who thereafter assigned the same to the plaintiff. The other two judgments, for $1,556.37 and $163.08, respectively, were so recovered by other persons in February, 1896, on similar causes of action existing and matured before October 1, 1894, and the same two judgments were, after the recovery thereof, assigned to the plaintiff.
1. I think the complaint sufficiently alleges that the defendants were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Melton
... ... A somewhat similar view of statutes as to the liability of ... directors was taken in Fitzgerald v. Weidenbeck (C ... C.) 76 F. 695, where it was, in effect, held that they ... should not be construed as penal, but as simply presenting a ... ...
-
Cary v. Schmeltz
...Waterford v. Elson, 149 F. 91; U. S. v. Railroad, 156 F. 182; Malloy v. H. & L. Co., 148 F. 482; Nelson v. Bank, 157 F. 161; Fitzgerald v. Weidenbeck, 76 F. 695; Gregory v. Bank, 3 Colo. 334; Anfenger v. Anzeiger, 12 P. 400; Jenet v. Albers, 43 P. 452; Tabor v. Bank, 62 F. 383; Bradford v. ......
-
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Crowell
...corporation to assume. In considering the statute in force in 1894 (Comp. Stats. 1887, Fifth Div. Sec. 460), the court in Fitzgerald v. Weidenbeck (C.C.) 76 F. 695, 'But, while the statutory liability of trustees has some of the characteristics of a penalty, and attaches upon such kind of d......
-
Hutcherson v. Thompson
... ... no mulct or forfeiture prescribed against the officers as ... punishment for their default. [ Fitzgerald v ... Weidenbeck, 76 F. 695.] The depositor cannot collect ... from the directors any sum greater than the debt owed him by ... the bank. [White ... ...