Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Miscellaneous. Cited in United States v. Lewis, 111 Fed. 633, charging that manslaughter at common law is substantially the same as defined in the Revised Statutes; State v. McDonald, 51 Mont. 16, 149 Pac. 285, holding in prosecution for kidnaping court need not instruct as to false imprisonment.

162 U. S. 324-325, 40 L. Ed. 984, 16 Sup. Ct. 801, UNITED STATES v. JULIAN.

United States commissioners are entitled to fees for jurat on deposition as well as certificate.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Fuchs v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 132 La. 795, 61 South. 794, holding testimony of witness taken out of State is inadmissible if witness is in court.

162 U. S. 326-329, 40 L. Ed. 985, 16 Sup. Ct. 795, HOLLANDER v. FECHHEIMER.

Appellate jurisdiction is determined by amount directly involved, not contingent or indirect.

Approved in Wallach v. Rudolph, 217 U. S. 562, 54 L. Ed. 883, 30 Sup. Ct. 587, holding contingent liability of owners in condemnation proceeding cannot be considered.

Distinguished in Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Co., 123 Fed. 19, 59 C. C. A. 94, holding section 6, Act March 3, 1891, does not authorize appeal to Supreme Court from Circuit Court of Appeals on petition to revise decision of District Court in bankruptcy.

Decree for plaintiff, remanding to trial court to ascertain amount of debt, is not final.

Approved in California Nat. Bank v. Stateler, 171 U. S. 449, 43 L. Ed. 234, 19 Sup. Ct. 7, decree referring cause to master for judicial purpose is not final; Bieber v. Fechheimer, 9 App. D. C. 551, holding decree that creditors should recover amount of their judgment is not final.

162 U. S. 329-339, 40 L. Ed. 986, 16 Sup. Ct. 810, GREAT WESTERN TEL. CO. v. PURDY.

Court's order for assessment is conclusive of its necessity, binding on every stockholder.

Approved in Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Min. etc. Co., 225 U. S. 141, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 875, 56 L. Ed. 1027, 32 Sup. Ct. 641, holding judgment of New York court dismissing suit against one joint tortfeasor is not bar to suit against other in Massachusetts; Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 532, 51 L. Ed. 1175, 27 Sup. Ct. 755, holding stockholders need not be served with process in action in which assessment is levied; Nashua Sav. Bank v. Anglo-American Land etc. Co., 189 U. S. 231, 47 L. Ed. 786, 23 Sup. Ct. 519, holding in absence of fraud courts cannot inquire into necessity of assessment by directors of foreign corporation upon its capital stock; Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 644, 44 L. Ed. 621, 20 Sup. Ct. 508, holding judgment against corporation rendered by Federal court in State where judgment binds stockholders must be given same force in another State; Spargo v. Converse, 191 Fed. 825, 112 C. C. A. 337, holding death of stockholder before assessment was made does not release executor; The Car Trust Inv. Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co., 184 Fed. 446, 107 C. C. A. 37, holding courts will not examine into wisdom of corporation in calling assessment; Irvine v. Putnam, 167 Fed. 182, holding court's order binding on nonresident; Brown v. Allebach, 156 Fed. 698, holding order of assessment binding on stockholder without notice; Campbell v. American Alkili Co., 125 Fed. 212, 61 C. C. A. 317, holding stockholder cannot attack assessment on ground of transfer of stock after call was made, but before same became due; Fish v. Smith, 73 Conn. 382, 389, 47 Atl. 713, 716, holding corporation shareholder after suit adjudging corporation insolvent and appointing receiver cannot dispute validity of receiver's appointment; Elson v. Wright, 134 Iowa, 640, 112 N. W. 107, holding stockholder must be brought into litigation before assessment is made; Childs v. Cleaves, 95 Me. 509, 50 Atl. 717, holding nonresident stockholder is bound by decree of State court in which suit for sequestration of corporation assets was instituted and receiver appointed; Howarth v. Lombard, 175 Mass. 577, 56 N. E. 891, holding nonresident stockholders are concluded by suit appointing receiver for insolvent bank and determining amount of liability; Neff v. Lamm, 99 Minn. 117, 108 N. W. 850, holding receiver might sue in probate court to obtain assessment of deceased stockholder; Straw etc. Mfg. Co. v. L. D. Kilbourne Boot etc. Co., 80 Minn. 134, 83 N. W. 38, holding under section 5, Laws 1899, c. 272, order determining amount of corporate assets and liabilities and necessity of assessment; Commonwealth etc. Ins. Co. v. Hayden, 61 Neb. 457, 85 N. W. 444, holding court having no jurisdiction of defendant stockholder cannot render personal judgment against him; Gilson v. Appleby, 79 N. J. Eq. 594, 81 Atl. 927, decree against nonappearing nonresident stockholder for his unpaid subscription, rendered in suit by receiver on notice mailed to nonresident, is valid; French v. Harding, 235 Pa. 86, 87, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 744, 83 Atl. 589, holding stockholder cannot question findings of insolvency; Langworthy v. Garding, 74 Minn. 331, 77 N. W. 209 (see dissenting opinion in 74 Minn. 333, 77 N. W. 210), reaffirming rule; Dexter v. Edmands, 89 Fed. 471, and Hale v. Hardon, 95 Fed. 756, 757, 762, 37 C. C. A. 240, (see dissenting opinion in 95 Fed. 786, 787, 790, 37 C. C. A. 240), reversing 89 Fed. 286, 288, adjudication of corporate indebtedness concludes nonresident stockholders; dissenting opinion in Converse v. Aetna Nat. Bank, 79 Conn. 186, 7 Ann. Cas. 75, 64 Atl. 349, majority holding order in receivership proceedings not binding on stockholder not party thereto.

Distinguished in Converse v. Aetna Nat. Bank, 79 Conn. 175, 7 Ann. Cas. 75, 64 Atl. 345, holding order in receivership proceedings not binding on stockholder not party.

Assessment on stockholders under order of court in another State as res judicata. Note, 34 L. R. A. 694, 701.

Court's order for assessment is not a judgment against stockholder; he may set up defenses.

Approved in Southworth v. Morgan, 205 N. Y. 297, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 56, 98 Ν. Ε. 491, applying principle; Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237-U. S. 423, 59 L. Ed. 1031, 35 Sup. Ct. 625, holding stockholder entitled to hearing on issue of execution against unpaid subscription; In re M. Stipp Const. Co., 221 Fed. 376, 137 C. C. A. 180, holding bankruptcy court may assess unpaid subscriptions to stock; In re Newfoundland Syndicate, 196 Fed. 447, holding bankruptcy court may determine necessity for assessment; Metropolitan Coach Co. v. Freund, 42 App. D. C. 285, holding stockholder may defend on ground that stock was issued to him as paid up; Swing v. Wellington, 44 Ind. App. 464, 89 N. E. 517, holding failure of insurance company to comply with statute is bar to suit on policy; Spinney v. Miller, 114 Iowa, 216, 89 Am. St. Rep. 355, 86 N. W. 319, holding method prescribed by Federal court for settling with borrowing members of loan association is not binding on members not parties to suit; Swing v. Red River Lumber Co., 105 Minn. 342, 117 N. W. 445, holding decree is conclusive only as to necessity for and amount of assessment; Swing v. Humbird, 94 Minn. 6, 101 N. W. 940, assessment by court of policy-holders of insolvent mutual insurance company not conclusive as to policy-holder's liability; Stone v. Penn Yan etc. Ry., 197 N. Y. 283, 134 Am. St. Rep. 879, 90 N. Ε. 845, holding defendant may plead incapacity of company; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. 287, 289, arguendo.

Distinguished in Warner v. Delbridge & Cameron Co., 110 Mich. 593, 64 Am. St. Rep. 370, 34 L. R. A. 702, 68 N. W. 284, where no valid defense existed.

Necessity of notice to stockholder to bind him by order for unpaid stock subscription in insolvency proceedings. Note, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 178, 180.

Decision that action against stockholders, on assessment ordered by court of another State is barred, infringes no Federal limitation.

Approved in Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 51, 52 L. Ed. 99, 28 Sup. Ct. 1, holding New York courts not bound by adjudication of New Jersey courts as regards domicile; Strout v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 195 Fed. 319, holding receiver of dissolved corporation may sue in foreign jurisdiction; Great Western Min. etc. Co. v. Harris, 128 Fed. 328, 63 C. С. А. 51, holding receiver of insolvent corporation appointed by court under general equity power cannot maintain suit to collect money in another jurisdiction; Miller v. Aldrich, 202 Mass. 114, 132 Am. St. Rep. 480, 88 Ν. Ε. 442, holding suit cannot be brought against Massachusetts stockholder under Colorado statute.

Distinguished in Great Western Min. etc. Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 577, 49 L. Ed. 1169, 25 Sup. Ct. 770, and Covell v. Fowler, 144 Fed. 538, 539, both holding receiver for insolvent corporation appointed by Nebraska court cannot bring suit against stockholder in Illinois.

Questions considered by Federal Supreme Court in reviewing judgments of State courts. Note, 63 L. R. A. 572, 575, 580. Questions of State law as to which State court decisions must be followed in actions originating in, or removed to, Federal courts. Note, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 422.

Statute of limitations is governed by lex fori.

Approved in Memphis v. Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District, 231 Fed. 220, holding Federal courts follow statute of limitations of State courts; Quinette v. Pullman Co., 229 Fed. 337, holding Federal courts will follow law of State court disqualifying corporation; Brown v. Allebach, 166 Fed. 491, holding limitation does not run on stock subscription until call is made; Hale v. Coffin, 120 Fed. 474, 57 C. C. А. 528, holding equity will not enforce stockholder's statutory liability where right to enforce same at law is barred by State statute of limitations; Keyser v. Lowell, 117 Fed. 404, 54 С. С. А. 574 holding unconstitutional Colo. Act April 6, 1899, barring actions on judgment rendered on cause of action which was barred in Colorado, but not in State of suit; Miller v. Lane, 160 Cal. 94, 116 Pac. 60, holding liability of stockholder accrues same time as corporation; Brunswick Terminal Co. v. Nat. Bank, 88 Fed. 608, and Dexter v. Edmands, 89 Fed. 473, reaffirming rule; Hobbs v. National Bank, 96 Fed. 397, 37 C. C. A. 513, arguendo. Distinguished in Brunswick Terminal Co. v. National Bank, 99 Fed. 636, 40 C. C. A. 22, holding Ga. statute of limitations applies to suit in Maryland to enforce liability of stockholders in Georgia corporation.

Whether demand when necessary to start statute of limitations,
must be made within statutory period. Note, 4 Ann. Cas. 729.
Running of limitations against unpaid balance of stock subscription.
Note, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 916.

What statute of limitations will govern action in other State or
country. Note, 48 L. R. A. 637.

Law governing limitations on contract. Note, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 660.

Law governing limitation of action where cause of action created by statute of another State. Note, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 688. Right to enforce stockholders' liability outside of State of incorporation. Note, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 910, 912.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Englehard-Hitchcock Co. v. Southern Banking etc. Co., 162 Fed. 691, discussing question of jurisdiction in foreclosure proceeding; Tompkins v. Craig, 102 Fed. 668, holding suit on foreign judgment is founded upon record rather than on subscription contract, hence defendant is entitled to have whole record set out; West v. Topeka Sav. Bank, 66 Kan. 532, 72 Pac. 255, holding statute of limitation begins to run against stockholder's subscription liability upon insolvency, although no call is made; dissenting opinion in Nashua Sav. Bank v. Anglo-American Land etc. Co., 108 Fed. 778, 48 С. С. А. 15, majority holding where record on appeal in suit for assessment against stockholder of foreign corporation does not contain all the evidence regularity of calls is presumed.

162 U. S. 339-346, 40 L. Ed. 991, 16 Sup. Ct. 850, GREAT WESTERN TEL. CO. v. BURNHAM.

Supreme Court cannot review State decision on error, unless final, and by highest court.

Approved in Rio Grande etc. Ry. Co. v. Stringham, 239 U. S. 47, 60 L. Ed. 138, 36 Sup. Ct. 6, holding writ of error will not lie on second appeal where Federal question was finally decided on first appeal; Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 186, 56 L. Ed. 156, 32 Sup. Ct. 46, holding judgment of highest court affirming judgment sustaining demurrer, but not dismissing suit, is not final; Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 8, 45 L. Ed. 402, 21 Sup. Ct. 242, holding Supreme Court will not reopen question involved on first appeal to let in Federal defense based on new pleas filed without leave where such leave was required; Kentucky v. Powers, 139 Fed. 489, 491, 492, petition for removal granted where discrimination in choice of jurors shown and code makes trial court's decision on juror's qualification final; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Tampa, 124 Fed. 935, holding writ of error will not lie to review decision of lower court after remand by Supreme Court for further proceedings; Finney v. Guy, 111 Wis. 299, 87 N. W. 256, holding judgment of State Circuit Court pursuant to mandate of Supreme Court on reversal ordering judgment in accordance with law, appealable.

What adjudications of State courts reviewable in Federal Supreme Court. Note, 62 L. R. A. 517, 518.

After State decision against Federal right and remand to trial court for further proceedings, a second appeal to highest State court is necessary before error to Supreme Court.

Approved in Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 444, 56 L. Ed. 1156, 32 Sup. Ct. 739, holding decision on former appeal is not law of case, when second appeal involves same State of facts; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 101, 54 L. Ed. 401, 30 Sup. Ct. 225, refusing to allow writ of error where Federal Supreme Court previously upheld law of West Virginia forfeiting lands not listed for taxes; Haseltine v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 U. S. 132, 46 L. Ed. 118, 22 Sup. Ct. 49, 50, holding judgment reversing judgment of trial court granting recovery of usuri

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsett »