Stewart At Al v. Ficken
| Decision Date | 12 August 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 12713.) |
| Parties | STEWART at al. v. FICKEN et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
STEWART at al.
v.
FICKEN et al.
(No. 12713.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Aug. 12, 1929.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; J. K. Henry, Judge.
Action by Emma H. Stewart and others against Henry H. Ficken and others. From an order refusing a motion by defendants to make complaint more definite and certain,
[149 S.E. 165]and to require a separate statement of each alleged cause of action, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Logan & Grace, John I. Cosgrove, J. N. Nathans, J Waties Waring, Waring & Brock-inton, and Geo. H. Moffett, all of Charleston, for appellants.
Barnwell & Black, of Charleston, for respondents.
COTHRAN, J. This is an appeal from an order of his honor, Judge Henry, dated December 1, 1927, refusing a motion by the defendants for an order requiring the complaint to be made more definite and certain in a number of particulars detailed, which included also a motion to require a separate statement of each alleged cause of action.
The defendants, with the exception of Emma J. Ficken, executrix of the will of John F. Ficken, deceased, a former president and director of the bank, were directors at the time of the collapse of the bank. The basis of the complaint is that, by culpable mismanagement of the affairs of the bank by the directors, its assets have been wasted, producing the failure and loss.
The first inquiry is as to what classes of individuals who have been burnt, or at least scorched, by the failure of the bank, are entitled to relief against the directors for such mismanagement—general creditors, depositors, stockholders, any or all. It appears well settled that, if the mismanagement of the directors has caused a loss to the corporation, and not to any particular general creditor, depositor, or stockholder, the liability of the directors on account thereof is an assest of the corporation, remediable only by an action in the name or in the right (under the appropriate circumstances) of the corporation; if the mismanagement of the directors has caused a particular loss to an individual general creditor, depositor, or stockholder, the liability is an asset of such injured individual, remediable by an action in his name.
This doctrine is clearly announced in the case of Browne v. Hammett, 133 S. C. 446, 131 S. E. 612, 613, where the court said: "The right of action against the officers and directors of a corporation, for their negligent and wrongful acts causing loss to the corporation, is one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Derivium Capital, LLC
... ... an action against the directors of a bank for negligent or wrongful acts is an action that lies with the bank and is an asset of the bank); Stewart v. Ficken, 151 S.C. 424, 426, 149 S.E. 164, 165 (S.C.1929) (holding "if the mismanagement of the directors has caused a loss to the corporation, ... ...
-
Arabi Gin Co. v. Plexus Cotton, Ltd. (In re, Joseph Walker & Co.)
...of the corporation.” Ward v.Griffin, 295 S.C. 219, 221, 367 S.E.2d 703, 704 (Ct.App.1988) (citing Stewart v. Ficken, 151 S.C. 424, 424, 149 S.E. 164, 165 (1929)). Plaintiffs purchased from the Trustee only the nine causes of action contained in their Complaints, which do not include a breac......
- PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Ross Dev. Corp.
-
Brown v. Stewart, 3408.
... ... 219, 221, 367 S.E.2d 703, 703-04 (Ct.App.1988) ... "It becomes material, therefore, to inquire whether the acts of mismanagement charged to the directors affected the plaintiffs directly, or as their interests were submerged in the corporation whose assets were thus dissipated." Stewart v. Ficken, 151 S.C. 424, 427, 149 S.E. 164, 165 (1929) ... 348 S.C. 50 An individual action is also allowed if the alleged wrongdoers owe a fiduciary relationship to the stockholder and full relief to the stockholder cannot be had through a recovery by the corporation. 19 Am.Jur.2d ... ...