Wall v. Dayton Fed'n Co.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 21717.,21717. |
| Parties | WALL v. DAYTON FEDERATION CO. et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
121 Ohio St. 334
168 N.E. 847
WALL
v.
DAYTON FEDERATION CO. et al.
No. 21717.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Nov. 20, 1929.
Error to the Court of Appeals, Montgomery County.
Action by Anna K. Wall against the Dayton Federation Company and others. Judgment for defendants, plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.-[By Editorial Staff.]
This is a proceeding to reverse the Court of Appeals of Montgomery county. In the original action in the common pleas court, the plaintiff in error, Anna K. Wall, filed her petition alleging that she had deposited with the Dayton Federation Company $1,007.05; that she entered into a verbal agreement with this defendant that this deposit could be withdrawn on demand; that later she presented her passbook to the defendant company and demanded the return of her money, which was refused. She then charges in her petition that the defendant company received the money to be invested in mortgage securities, but that it had been conducting a banking business without any authority of law; that it repeatedly paid dividends to its stockholders out of its capital when its books showed an operating deficit; that the officers and directors of the company diverted the funds; that $300,000 of the money belonging to the defendant company had been loaned without any security whatsoever; that, while a large number of shares of stock had been sold, only one certificate had ever been issued; that the stock sales were induced and made by false statements of the financial condition of the defendant company; that the continuance of these acts would work irreparable injury to the plaintiff and other stockholders and depositors, by dissipating the assets of the defendant company.
In her prayer the plaintiff asks, first, a judgment for $1,007.05; second, for an accounting; third, that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the corporate property; fourth, that the defendants be enjoined from disposing of any property now in their possession belonging to the defendant company; and, fifth, for general equitable relief.
The plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of a receiver, and the defendants filed an answer reciting that plaintiff had subscribed for certain stock in the defendant company; denied the allegations of misrepresentation, violation of contract, etc., and set up the condition of the company, such latter averment being to meet the request for the appointment of a receiver.
The matter came on for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levenson v. Wolfson
...316, 317, 175 N. E. 456;Union Trust Co. v. Lessovitz, supra, at page 414 of 122 Ohio St., 171 N. E. 849;Wall v. Dayton Federation Co., 121 Ohio St. 334, 168 N. E. 847. The petition contains a caption listing a party ‘plaintiff,’ by name, and some fifteen persons and corporations as defendan......
-
Ireland v. Cheney
...made by pleadings and the relief prayed for therein. Hummer v. Parsons, 111 Ohio St. 595, 146 N. E. 62;Wall v. Dayton Federation Co., 121 Ohio St. 334, 168 N. E. 847;J. P. Loomis Coal & Supply Co. v. Garchev, 123 Ohio St. 316, 175 N. E. 456. It is therefore necessary to look to the pleading......
-
Norris v. Norris
...pointed out the civilian has great difficulty in understanding what we mean by a trust.’ We are cited to Wall v. Dayton Federation Co., 121 Ohio St. 334, 168 N.E. 847, which, on appeal, was dismissed in this Court and our action affirmed in the Supreme Court. In that case the plaintiff, Ann......
-
Connelly v. Balkwill, 33473
... ... Brown, 92 Ohio St. 287, 110 N.E. 739; Hummer v. Parsons, 111 Ohio St. 595, 146 N.E. 62; Wall v. Dayton Federation Co., 121 Ohio St. 334, 168 N.E. 847; J. P. Loomis Coal & Supply Co. v ... ...