Mason v. Supreme Court of Equitable League of Am. of Baltimore City
Decision Date | 20 June 1893 |
Citation | 77 Md. 483,27 A. 171 |
Parties | MASON et al. v. SUPREME COURT OF EQUITABLE LEAGUE OF AMERICA OF BALTIMORE CITY. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.
Bill by Thomas J. Mason and others against the Supreme Court of the Equitable League of America of Baltimore City for the appointment of a receiver, and for an Injunction. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before ROBINSON, C. J., and BRYAN, McSHERRY, and FOWLER, JJ.
L. Hochheimer, Sidney Hall, C. A. Briscoe, and O. Parker Baker, for appellants.
Geo. R. Willis, George G. Hooper, Rhodes & Rhodes, and F. C. Dugan, for appellee.
The appellants filed a bill in the circuit court of Baltimore city against the appellee, a corporation formed under the general incorporation law of Maryland, and the prayer is that a receiver may be appointed to take charge of and administer the assets of the defendant corporation under the order of the court, and for an injunction restraining the officers and agents of said defendant from receiving or collecting any money or assessments due or coming to it, and from interfering with its property or assets, and for general relief. The defendant answered, testimony was taken, and a decree was passed dismissing the bill. The appellee is what is known as a "beneficial assessment association."
The first question is one of jurisdiction, and we are all of opinion that the learned judge below properly refused to appoint a receiver and issue the injunction on the allegations contained in the bill, for the granting of such relief would necessarily result in a dissolution of the corporation and a forfeiture of its charter. The defendant was not alleged to be insolvent; certainly not so alleged as to bring the case within section 264 of article 23 of the Code; and, even if the allegation of insolvency had been sufficient, we find no proof to sustain it Nor are there any allegations in the bill looking to proceedings under section 265 of the same article, providing for a voluntary dissolution. Apart from statutory power, a court of equity cannot dissolve a corporation. "It is true," says Mr. High in his book on Receivers, (section 288,) We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cronan v. District Court First Judicial Districto of State of Idaho
... ... , as Judge of Said Court, Defendants Supreme Court of Idaho June 26, 1908 ... Backus, ... 32 Ill. 79, 115; Mason v. Supreme Court, 77 Md. 483, ... [15 Idaho ... A. 210; Con. Tank Line ... Co. v. Kansas City Varnish Co., 43 F. 204; Enos v ... New York & ... exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the court, and that ... the ... ...
-
Corbett v. Lincoln Sav. & Loan Ass'n
... ... [ * ] Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis May 7, 1929 ... from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.--Hon ... Franklin Miller, Judge ... Flitcraft, 36 S.W. 675; Dill v. Supreme Lodge ... Knights of Honor, 226 F. 807; ... Norton, ... 106 U.S. 124; Baltimore & O. Southwestern R. Co. v ... Reed, 158 Ind ... 791; Mason v. Supreme Court of the Equitable League, ... ...
-
Riley v. Callahan Mining Co.
... ... , a Corporation, et al., Respondents Supreme Court of Idaho February 8, 1916 ... RELIEF GRANTED TO-EQUITABLE POWERS OF COURT ... 1. A ... 911; State ... v. Atlantic City & S. R. Co., 77 N.J.L. 465, 72 A. 111; ... 508; French Bank Case, 53 ... Cal. 495; Mason v. Supreme Court, 77 Md. 483, 39 Am ... St ... ...
-
Sydnor v. Hathaway
...” James J. Hanks, Jr., Maryland Corporation Law § 11.1 at 346 (Wolters Kluwer, 2008 Supp.) (quoting Mason v. Sup. Ct. of the Equitable League, 77 Md. 483, 484, 27 A. 171 (1893) ). “Historically, Maryland has been reluctant to expand the equity jurisdiction of courts to include the ability t......