Price v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 03 September 1884 |
| Citation | 21 F. 357 |
| Parties | PRICE, Receiver, v. COLEMAN and others. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
A. A. Ranney and J. R. Clark, for complainant.
E. R. Hoar, Henry Baldwin, J. W. Richardson, Sherman & Bell, Richard Stone, Geo. F. Williams, Jesse F. Wheeler, Joseph Cuttler, Morse & Allen, and Brooks & Nichols, for defendants.
Before GRAY and NELSON, JJ.
To the bill in its present shape the demurrers for multifariousness and for uncertainty are well taken. The bill is clearly multifarious in joining claims for losses suffered by the corporation by reason of the directors' negligence and inattention, and claims for losses suffered by the stockholders by reason of having been induced to subscribe for new shares by misrepresentations of the directors. The bill, brought against all those who were directors during various periods of time, does not state the dates of the losses sustained by the corporation, nor the dates of the acts or omissions contributing to those losses, with sufficient certainty to inform each of the defendants with which and how many of the losses it is sought to charge him. The bill must be amended, in these respects, at least, before the court can justly or intelligently determine, as between the complainant and the several defendants, whether the bill is multifarious in joining as defendants those who were directors at different times; whether it sets forth a liability upon which the complainant can maintain a bill in equity; and whether it sets forth a cause of action which survives against representatives of deceased directors.
Demurrers sustained, with costs; leave to amend the bill.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosmopolitan Trust Company v. Mitchell
... ... 486 ... Almy v. Almy, ... Bigelow & Washburn, Inc. 235 Mass. 227 ... The case at bar ... is distinguishable in this respect from Price v. Coleman, 21 ... Manifestly no one ... of the defendants can be held liable for anything save the ... results of his own ... ...
-
Michelsen v. Penney
...suit. It is true that there is no separate stating and numbering, but the two causes of action are present in the one bill. See Price v. Coleman, 21 F. 357 (C. C. Mass.) decided on circuit by Mr. Justice Gray; Price v. Union Land Co., 187 F. 886 (C. C. A. 8); Killen v. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546,......
-
Dunphy v. Travelers' Newspaper Ass'n
...Salvidge v. Hyde, Jac. 151. To a similar point is Pearse v. Hewitt, 7 Sim. 471. See Winsor v. Bailey, 55 N.H. 218; Price v. Coleman, 21 F. 357; Pope Leonard, 115 Mass. 286. See, also, Sanborn v. Dwinell, 135 Mass. 236. The bill (except so far as it prays that dividends be decreed) is brough......
-
Allen v. Luke
...called upon to state evidence at length, but only the conclusions of fact which the evidence tends to establish. In the case of Price v. Coleman (C.C.) 21 F. 357, I find nothing conflict with the decision thus reached. Fifth. As to B, that the statutory liability is exclusive, and that neit......