WINGERT V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK
| Citation | 223 U. S. 670 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1912 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
After filing of a bill for injunction, defendants proceed at their peril, and even if no preliminary injunction is issued, if they inflict actionable wrong upon the plaintiff, the bill can be retained for assessment of damages; but if the only ground left for further prosecution is costs, the appeal will be dismissed.
Where, pending trial below and hearing of appeal, the object unsuccessfully sought to be enjoined has been accomplished -- in this case, the erection of a building by a bank -- the only ground left for further prosecution is costs, and the appeal will be dismissed.
An action by a stockholder for injunction against a national bank and its director to restrain them from materially altering the bank building will not be transmuted into an action for damages against the directors for so doing; such an action will not lie.
Appeal from 175 F. 739 dismissed.
The facts, which involve the power of directors of a national bank to alter its building against the protest of a minority of its shareholders, are stated in the opinion.
This is a bill to restrain the defendants, a national bank, its directors and a contractor employed by them, from pulling down the bank building and erecting a six-story building in its place, the first floor to be used for banking purposes, the other floors to be let for offices. The plaintiff is a holder of stock in the bank, and alleges that the intended construction is ultra vires and commercially unwise. The circuit court dismissed the bill on the ground that, in the absence of bad faith, it would not revise the judgment of the majority of the directors on the question of policy, and that a national bank lawfully might turn its building to the best account by adding upper stories for offices to let. The circuit court of appeals affirmed the decree on the opinion below. 175 F. 739. Pending the litigation, the new structure has been built.
Objections are interposed on both sides -- on the part of the defendants, to the right of a stockholder to prevent by injunction acts beyond the power of the corporation; on
that of the plaintiff, to the reception of the bank's answer because it was adopted at a meeting of which the plaintiff's brother, a protesting director, was not notified. Without giving the slightest countenance to either, it is enough to say that the whole case is disposed of by the erection of the new bank. No doubt, after the filing of a bill for an injunction, defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rutherford v. Rutherford
...... First, the defendants maintain that the contempt orders were erroneous because, ... See, e.g., Wingert v. First National Bank, 223 U.S. 670, 672, 32 S.Ct. 391, 56 L.Ed. 605 ......
-
State ex rel. St. Louis v. Pub. Serv. Comm.
...... even though the whole of it may have been wisely bought in the first instance. Neither is there, under this topic, a question whether the ......
-
State ex rel. St. Louis v. Publ. Serv. Commission.
......(2d) 628; Capital City Gas Light Co. v. Des Moines, 72 Fed. 829; National Water Works Co. v. Kansas City, 62 Fed. 853; New York & Richmond Gas Co. .... The first point stated in appellant's brief is in the nature of a general definition ......
-
United States v. Meyer
......It should be observed first that the letter was incompetent as evidence, for the reason that it was ...Wingert v. First National Bank, 223 U.S. 670, 32 S.Ct. 391, 56 L.Ed. 605; Mulford ......