Ogilvie Et Al v. Knox Insurance Company Et Al

• Citation: 67 U.S. 539,17 L.Ed. 349,2 Black 539
• Parties: OGILVIE ET AL. v. KNOX INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
• Decision Date: 01 December 1862
• Court: United States Supreme Court

67 U.S. 539

2 Black 539

17 L.Ed. 349

OGILVIE ET AL. v. KNOX INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.

December Term, 1862

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Indiana.

Mr. Gillet, of Washington City, and Mr. Judah, of Indiana, for the appellants.

Mr. Gookins, of Indiana, for the Appellees.

Mr. Justice GRIER.

When this case came before us on a former occasion (see 22 How., 380,) the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill was reversed, and the record remanded, with instructions to that Court to enter a decree for the complainants against the respondents, severally, for such amount as should appear was due and unpaid by each of them on their several shares of the capital stock of the Knox Insurance Company, and to have such other and further proceedings as to justice and right might appertain.

At the May Term, 1860, of the Circuit Court, a decree was entered, in conformity with the judgment of this Court, ascertaining the amount of the judgments, due by the Insurance Company to the several complainants, and the several amounts due by each of the stockholders, respondents to the company. At the next November Term divers other creditors of the Company filed their petitions, setting forth that they also had become judgment creditors of the Company, and praying to be made parties to the bill, and suggesting that there were other persons indebted to the Company 'whose indebtedness ought to be paid for the benefit of the petitioners;' that the amount found to be due from those against whom a decree has already been rendered was insufficient to liquidate the claims of the petitioners and other parties entitled to participate in the distribution of said funds; and praying that a Receiver might be appointed to receive and collect from the persons so indebted the amounts due by them, respectively, &c., &c. The Court then appointed a Receiver, according to the request of petitioners. But before the funds of the Company were collected, on the 7th of December, the Court entered a decree that all the moneys recovered or to be recovered under the decree made at last term be distributed among the original complainants and the several persons who had filed their petitions, praying to be made parties, complainants, &c., &c., and appointing a Master to state an account, &c.

The appellants contend that this decree is erroneous and unjust to the original petitioners. This may possibly be found to be true when the proper time comes to have...