Rue v. Miller
| Decision Date | 07 July 1903 |
| Docket Number | 1,174. |
| Citation | 124 F. 208 |
| Parties | RUE v. MILLER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
George A. Burr, for appellant.
Harlan Cleveland, for appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio.
On the 4th of February, 1897, the First National Bank of Franklin Ohio, became insolvent, and was put in charge of the appellee, Joseph D. Miller, as receiver. At that time it was a creditor of the Franklin Paper Company, an Ohio corporation, in the sum of $53,602.87, and was also a stockholder in said company to the amount of $5,650, and had prior to that time held other stock it had disposed of amounting to $5,650. On the 7th of July, 1896, the paper company having become insolvent, Walter B. Schaeffer, a creditor, brought suit in the court of common pleas of Warren county, Ohio, against the bank and all other stockholders of the paper company to enforce the statutory liability, under section 3260 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio of 1892 rendered against all of the stockholders of the paper company. There was a judgment against the bank for $2,361.13 on a liability of $5,650 on the stock which it had sold which judgment was for the benefit of only 11 creditors, not including the bank; and there was another judgment against the bank for $5,650 on the stock still held by the bank, which was for the benefit of all the creditors of the paper company, including the bank. Dividends aggregating
70 per cent. have been declared by the Comptroller of the Currency to be paid by the receiver out of the assets of the bank. The estimated dividend from the fund in the hands of the complainant is 5 per cent. Because the receiver claims the right to set off the dividends due the creditors of the paper company on the judgment of $5,650, in which it is a beneficiary, against the dividends which will come to him on the claim of $53,602.87 out of the fund being collected by the receiver of the paper company, this suit has been brought to compel him to issue a certificate for the full amount of the dividends, without reference to the anticipated dividend he may receive. On final hearing the court below decreed that the defendant receiver issue to the complainant a certificate for the sum of $2,361.13, the amount of the judgment which was obtained for the benefit of only 11 creditors of the paper company, not including the bank, and pay the complainant on that certificate the dividends theretofore declared and thereafter to be declared, and paid to the creditors of the bank; that the defendant also issue to the complainant a certificate for the sum of $5,650, the amount of the judgment rendered against the bank, in which the bank was interested to the amount of the dividends it should receive on its claim against the paper company; that the defendant pay to the complainant on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peurifoy v. Gamble
...in a fiduciary capacity, its character is not changed by being placed to his credit in his bank account." In the case of Rue v. Miller (C. C. A.) 124 F. 208, cited in the opinion of Mr. Justice Stabler, the syllabus is: "In case of two insolvent estates, each indebted to the other, the divi......
-
Hoffman v. Gleason
...if the right of set-off existed, it was not applicable until the trustee in bankruptcy had been paid in full, is without merit. Rue v. Miller, 6 Cir., 124 F. 208; Gardner v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 261 U.S. 453, 456, 43 S.Ct. 424, 67 L.Ed. 741, 29 A.L.R. 622; Hood v. Brownlee, 4 Cir., 62......
-
Allen v. Holleman
... ... is that contended for by the bank. This conclusion is ... supported by the rule laid down in 32 C.J. 885, that "in ... the case of two insolvent estates, each indebted to the ... other, a dividend to one should be set-off as against the ... dividend to the other," citing Rue v. Miller (C. C ... A.) 124 F. 208, and Markell v. Ray, 75 Minn ... 138, 77 N.W. 788. See also Akin v. Williamson (Ch.) ... 35 S.W. 569, a Tennessee Case squarely in point ... It is ... therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff ... as administrator c. t. a ... ...
-
American Surety Co. v. City of Akron
...even though one of the demands has not yet matured. Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U.S. 499, 507, 13 S.Ct. 148, 36 L.Ed. 1059; Rue v. Miller, 6 Cir., 124 F. 208; Harter Bank of Canton v. Inglis, 6 Cir., 6 F.2d 841; First National Bank of Indianola v. Malone, 8 Cir., 76 F.2d 251. However, this righ......