Priest v. Seaman
| Citation | 266 F. 844 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | 5448. |
| Parties | PRIEST v. SEAMAN et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Henry S. Priest and Thomas T. Fauntleroy, both of St. Louis, Mo (Boyle & Priest and Fauntleroy, Cullen & Hay, all of St Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Ephrim Caplan, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee Seaman.
George H. Williams, of St. Louis, Mo. (Irvin V. Barth, William R Gentry, M. F. Watts, and Edwin W. Lee, all of St. Louis, Mo on the brief), for appellee Leed Mining Co.
Randolph Laughlin, of St. Louis, Mo. (Ephrim Caplan, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellees Laughlin.
Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.
John W. Seaman filed his bill, as a stockholder, against the United Railways Company, this appellant, as an officer of such company, and various other officers and directors of the company. The purposes of the bill were to recover assets alleged to have been wrongfully diverted by such officers and directors, to escape certain burdensome power contracts fraudulently made by such officers and directors on the part of the company, to displace such officers and directors, and, incidentally, if necessary to preserve the assets and the street railway system from dismemberment, to have a receiver appointed. Later Samuel W. Adler, a junior bondholder, filed his bill against the company and its predecessor, alleging insolvency and threatened dismemberment of the railway system by holders of defaulted bonds senior to those held by him, and asked a receivership. There were answers and interventions filed, and finally, upon motion of Seaman and certain interveners, the Adler Case was consolidated as an intervention with the Seaman suit. Prior to this last order a receiver had been appointed in the Adler suit. As a part of the above order of intervention and consolidation a receiver was appointed, and the usual injunction issued against interference therewith by officers and directors of the company. From this order appointing a receiver, enjoining corporate action by the officers and directors, and declaring the Adler bill an intervention in the Seaman suit, Priest appeals. The above outline is sufficient for the purposes of this case, but a more detailed statement may be found in the case of Adler v. Seaman (C.C.A.) 266 F. 828, decided at this time.
A motion to dismiss this appeal has been filed. The grounds therefor are:
That 'the appellant, Henry S. Priest, is only one of a number of defendants in this cause, and all the parties (defendant) interested in the cause and affected by the decree are not joined in this appeal, nor have such other parties (defendant) been notified and requested to join in the appeal,' and that 'the real part been obtained on their refusal to join in the appeal,' and that 'the real party (defendant) in interest in this cause and affected by the order appealed from is the United Railways Company of St. Louis, and this defendant does not join in the appeal, nor has it been served with notice of the appeal and requested to join in the appeal, nor has a severance been taken as to this defendant.'
Th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adler v. Seaman
...in both the Seaman and Adler cases, praying that the two causes be consolidated, and that the Adler suit be treated as an intervention in the Seaman The above pleadings will be developed, and other pleadings which were filed will be noticed, further in this opinion. April 24, 1919, the cour......
-
American Baptist Home Mission Soc. v. Barnett
...439, 54 L. Ed. 632; Grand Island, etc., Co. v. Sweeney, 103 F. 342 (C. C. A. 8); Ibbs v. Archer, 185 F. 37 (C. C. A. 3); Priest v. Seaman, 266 F. 844 (C. C. A. 8); Babcock v. Norton, 5 F.(2d) 153 (C. C. A. The reasons for the rule are stated in the cases to be two: To permit the successful ......
-
Axelrod v. Osage Oil & Refining Co.
...Colorado (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 624, 625; Arkansas Anthracite Coal & Land Co. et al. v. Stokes, et al. (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 511; Priest v. Seaman (C. C. A.) 266 F. 844. A situation, however, as to the facts, may be presented, such as to take a case out of the general It seems to us that the ma......
-
Babcock v. Norton
...number of cases in the lower federal courts in which the rule has been recognized and applied. We cite a few of them: Priest v. Seaman (C. C. A.) 266 F. 844; Bank v. Corey Bros. Construction Co. (C. C. A.) 205 F. 282; Lamon v. Speer Hardware Co., 190 F. 734, 111 C. C. A. 462; Ireton v. Penn......