Steiner v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 21 June 1894
• Citation: 16 So. 6
• Parties: STEINER ET AL. v. PARSONS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 6

STEINER ET AL. v. PARSONS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 21, 1894

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; H. A. Sharpe, Judge.

Suit by J. H. Parsons against B. Steiner and others. From a decree overruling demurrers to the complaint, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

For report on former appeal, see 13 So. 771.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, J. H. Parsons against B. Steiner and the Birmingham, Powderly & Bessemer Street Railroad Company, for the purpose of compelling an accounting by B. Steiner for certain sums of money appropriated by him, belonging to said Birmingham, Powderly &amp Bessemer Street Railroad Company, of which corporation the complainant was a stockholder. This is the second appeal in this case. The facts are set out at length in the former appeal, which is reported in 13 So. 771; and it is deemed unnecessary to again set out the allegations of the bill in this report. On the remandment of the cause the complainant amended his bill, in which amendment, after alleging many irregularities and frauds committed by B. Steiner and his associates, who were members of the directory of said corporation, the complainant averred "that by reason of the combination made between the said Steiner, Lesser Beitman, and Hochstadter to control the majority of stock of the corporation, and of the claims of said Steiner upon said stock, and their refusal to act when a demand was made upon them by said Downey to bring this suit, it is useless to make any appeal to said board of directors, or to the stockholders, to make the corporation a complainant in this suit." It was also averred in said amendment "that it is very clear that said Steiner and the said directors, as directors and stockholders, holding the balance of power in said corporation, would never have consented to begin this suit, or allow it to have been begun in the name of the corporation, and it would have been futile to have made any effort to get them so to do; or if it had been allowed it would have been so controlled as to save and protect the said Steiner in his fraudulent acts as charged in this bill." The respondents demurred to the bill as last amended, upon substantially the same grounds as when the bill was originally filed, and as amended before the former appeal. The chancellor overruled these demurrers, and the respondents appeal, and assign as errors the decree of the chancellor in overruling the said demurrers.

...