Handley v. Stutz
| Decision Date | 08 December 1890 |
| Citation | 34 L.Ed. 706,137 U.S. 366,11 S.Ct. 117 |
| Parties | HANDLEY et al. v. STUTZ et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 366-368 intentionally omitted] Edwin H. East and James S. Pilcher, for appellants.
Walter Evans and Jas. R. Macfarlane, for appellees.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a bill in equity by some, in behalf of all, of the creditors of a corporation against the corporation and holders of stock therein. The bill is not founded upon any direct liability of the stockholders to the plaintiffs, but upon the theory that, the corporation being insolvent, and having no other assets, the sums due to it from the stockholders on their unpaid subscriptions to stock ought to be paid by them to the corporation as a trust fund to be distributed among the plaintiffs and all other creditors of the corporation, so far as required to satisfy their just claims, and that, the corporation having neglected to collect these sums, or to administer the trust, and the plaintiffs and defendants being citizens of different states, the circuit court, sitting in equity, should compel those sums to be paid in by the stockholders, to be administered as a trust fund, and to de distributed among all creditors who should come in. Such a bill can only be maintained by one or more creditors in behalf half of all, and not by any one creditor to secure payment of his own debt to the exclusion of others. Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610, 622; Patterson v. Lynde, 106 U. S. 519, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 432; Johnoson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640, 674, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 619. In Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205, the bill of a single creditor, which was sustained by the court, was brought in behalf of himself, and all other creditors of the corporation who should come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit. No other creditors came in, and it did not appear that there were any others.
Each of the appellants has been charged by the decree below with a sum of more than $5,000; and it is undisputed that each of them, if the others should prove insolvent, would be obliged to pay the whole sum charged against him, and that each, therefore, has more than $5,000 at stake. The contest in upon the sufficiency in amount of the creditors' claims to support the jurisdiction of the circuit court in the first instance, and of this court on appeal, within the meaning of the statutes limiting the jurisdiction of each court to cases in which the sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard
... ... stock, and they alone are entitled to enforce their claims ... against those accepting that stock. Handley v ... Stutz, 139 U.S. 417, 435, 11 Sup.Ct. 117, 34 L.Ed. 706 ... Plaintiffs' petitions and the special finding show ... unmistakably that the ... ...
-
Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co.
...to the rule affirmed in Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (7 Sup.Ct. 1066, 30 L.Ed. 1083), and the cases there collected.' Here, as in Handley v. Stutz, the fund sought to be distributed in excess of the jurisdictional amount; the claims of all the complainants are in the aggregate more than ......
-
Clark v. Paul Gray
...a fund brought within the jurisdiction of the court. Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27, 7 S.Ct. 1066, 30 L.Ed. 1083; Handley v. Stutz, 137 U.S. 366, 11 S.Ct. 117, 34 L.Ed. 706; National Bank of Commerce v. Allen, 8 Cir., 90 F. 545, 555, 556. ...
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Central Republic T. Co.
...against each particular stockholder. It is the amount to be collected and apportioned among the stockholders. Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366, 11 S. Ct. 117, 34 L. Ed. 706; Troy Bank v. G. A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 32 S. Ct. 9, 56 L. Ed. 81; Alsop v. Conway, supra; Robertson v. Conw......