Rude v. Wagman
| Citation | 207 P. 992,71 Colo. 499 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10285. |
| Parties | RUDE et al. v. WAGMAN et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 3, 1922.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Clarence J Morley, Judge.
Action by Abner Wagman against the Marshall Coal Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants I. Rude and others bring error and ask for a supersedeas.
Judgment reversed and remanded, and supersedeas denied.
J. E. Robinson, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
William H. Dickson, of Denver, for defendants in error.
This action was instituted by Abner Wagman, Plaintiff, v. Marshall Coal Company, I. Rude, Otto Hasbach, and N. Weinberg Defendants. The defendants Rude and Weinberg were minority stockholders of the defendant corporation.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff 'brings this action as president and a director of the company and as a stockholder and as a creditor for and on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other creditors and stockholders.' The prayer was for the appointment of 'a receiver to take charge of the property and assets of the defendant the Marshall Coal Company for the purpose of preserving and protecting the same from the waste and depreciation, injury and damage now resulting through the wrongful acts of the individual defendants,' and for an injunction against the individual defendants, and for an accounting between the three individual defendants and the defendant coal company and for costs and general relief. The three individual defendants interposed a general demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that the facts therein alleged were insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to an injunction, or to the appointment of a receiver of the defendant company. The demurrer was overruled, and after answers filed and a hearing, a receiver was appointed. To review that order defendants bring error and ask for a supersedeas. The demurrer should have been sustained. The averments of the bill are insufficient to give the plaintiff as a stockholder a sufficient status to maintain the action. It is elementary that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Land Drilling Co.
...made if such demand would be futile or upon directors allegedly involved as wrongdoers. Bell v. Arnold, 487 P.2d at 547; Rude v. Wagman, 71 Colo. 499, 207 P. 992 (1922). Federal courts have generally been lenient in excusing demand. deHaas v. Empire Petroleum Co., 435 F.2d 1223 (10th Cir.19......
- Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Industrial Com'n
-
Bell v. Arnold
...general rule is that demands need not be made by shareholder plaintiffs upon directors allegedly involved as wrongdoers. See Rude v. Wagman, 71 Colo. 499, 207 P. 992; 13 W. Fletcher, Private Corporations § 6008 (1970 Rev.); See also Note, Demand in Derivative Suits, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 746, 759 ......
- Rude v. Wagman