Young v. Higbee Co., 9637.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 9637.,9637. |
| Citation | 142 F.2d 1004 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. HIGBEE CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert W. Purcell, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
J. Fred Potts and L. C. Wykoff, all of Cleveland, Ohio (Charles K. Arter, L. C. Wykoff, J. Fred Potts, and Paul S. Knight, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellees.
Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
This case came on to be heard upon the briefs and record and oral argument of counsel.
And it appearing that this controversy arises out of the sale on or about March 7, 1942, of 250 shares of preferred stock of the Higbee Company, debtor, in a reorganization proceeding, and ten shares of stock in the same company owned by J. F. Potts and William W. Boag respectively, to C. L. Bradley and J. P. Murphy, for a total consideration of $115,000, an amount far in excess of the value of the shares;
And it appearing that Potts and Boag at the time of the sale were prosecuting an appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, confirming the amended plan of reorganization of the debtor, which was dismissed March 11, 1942;
And it appearing that the amended application of appellant for institution of proceedings filed herein prays that an order be entered either (1) authorizing him to employ counsel on behalf of the debtor to institute proceedings against J. F. Potts, William W. Boag, C. L. Bradley, J. P. Murphy and any other party who may be liable, to compel an accounting and payment over to the debtor of a sum equal to the difference between the fair value of the preferred stock which was sold by Potts and Boag to Bradley and Murphy and the sum of $115,000, or (2) directing the same individuals to pay to the first preferred stockholders of the debtor the difference between the fair value of such preferred stock and the sum of $115,000;
And it appearing that the relief sought is an accounting primarily from Potts and Boag and secondarily from Bradley and Murphy, the claim being based upon the contention that (a) Potts and Boag in the prosecution of their appeal to this court were acting for themselves and all preferred stockholders, or (b) that Potts and Boag in the prosecution of their appeal were asserting a derivative right belonging to the debtor; and (c) that Bradley and Murphy, at the time of the sale, knew that Potts and Boag were acting in one or the other of such capacities and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Higbee Co
...this finding, thought it determinative of the case, and dismissed Young's petition. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 6 Cir., 142 F.2d 1004, 1005. Because considerations of substantial importance to the effective administration of corporate reorganizations are involved, we granted cert......
-
In re Higbee Co.
...the Supreme Court in Young v. Higbee Co., 324 U.S. 204, 65 S.Ct. 594, 89 L.Ed. 890, reversing the opinion of this court reported in 6 Cir., 142 F.2d 1004. The Supreme Court held that Young was not estopped from prosecuting his petition for an accounting by Potts and Boag to the preferred st......
-
Young v. Potts, 10412
...issued in pursuance of its opinion in Young v. The Higbee Co., 324 U.S. 204, 65 S.Ct. 594, 89 L.Ed. 890, reversing our decision in 6 Cir., 142 F.2d 1004, and directing a remand to the district court for an accounting of profits made by Potts and Boag in the sale of preferred stock in the Hi......