Citation network
Hale Vs. Allinson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 19, 1903
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 56 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Hale v. AllinsonSearch
-
U.S. 56 (1903) Hale v. AllinsonSearch
-
is to the creditor, and that the receiver of the company cannot enforce it. It was held, as far back as 1879, in Allen v. WalshSearch
-
and determined. The receiver of an insolvent corporation was not a proper party to bring such action. In Palmer v. BankSearch
-
of Zumbrota, 65 Minn. 90, (decided in 1896), the court referred to Allen v. WalshSearch
-
was a harmless error which had been corrected before it was assailed. Again, in Minneapolis Baseball Company v. CitySearch
-
to enforce such liability of stockholders. The Supreme Court of Minnesota has, however, in a very late case, Hanson v. DavisonSearch
-
Minn. 454 (decided in July, 1898), somewhat limited or explained Allen v. WalshSearch
-
in the opinion, that a creditor of the Citizens' Bank, which was an insolvent concern, brought an action ( Harper v. CarrollSearch
-
remained unpaid upon them the sum of forty odd thousand dollars, exclusive of interest. The defendant in the Hanson v. DavisonSearch
-
action was named as a defendant in the other, or Harper v. CarrollSearch
-
the court in the latter case did not acquire jurisdiction to render a judgment against her. In the opinion in Hanson v. DavisonSearch
-
having been found within the jurisdiction of the court either before or after judgment in the original action ( Harper v. CarrollSearch
-
for it could be attached or sequestered in the original action. It was contended by the defendant in the Hanson v. DavisonSearch
-
case that, as there had been a former action ( Harper v. CarrollSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
such a conclusion would be, still it must be admitted that there are expressions in the opinion in the case of Allen v. WalshSearch
-
for the debts of the corporation, the method of enforcing it, and just what was decided by the case of Allen v. WalshSearch
-
of the case, and cannot be regarded as overruling the prior cases. The opinions in Minneapolis Baseball Company v. BankSearch
-
Minn. 441, and in Hanson v. DavisonSearch
-
under chapter 76 has no authority to enforce the stockholders' superadded liability. See Minneapolis Baseball Company v. CitySearch
-
Palmer v. BankSearch
-
appointed in the state, maintain such action in a foreign jurisdiction. This we have decided at this term in Evans v. NellisSearch
-
as this in the courts of that state. An examination of the opinion of the Chief Justice, however, in the Hanson v. DavisonSearch
-
which had already been decided by the same court years before and up to and including the Minneapolis Baseball Company v. BankSearch
-
or confer upon any receiver appointed in the case the right to proceed to enforce it. The cases of Whitman v. OxfordSearch
-
National Bank, 176 U. S. 559 , and Hancock National Bank v. FarnumSearch
-
We pursue the subject after the decision of Evans v. NellisSearch
-
not prevent it, he may maintain an action of this nature notwithstanding the former decision of this Court in Booth v. ClarkSearch
-
explained away by any subsequent decision of this Court to which our attention has been called. In Relfe v. RundleSearch
-
that no defense could be made by anyone. The case is no authority for the maintenance of this action. In Hawkins v. GlennSearch
-
situated as the complainant is in this suit, to maintain an action outside of the state of his appointment. In Hazard v. DurantSearch
-
in another in his own name, though expressly authorized by the decree to maintain actions in his own name. In Hale v. HardonSearch
-
in favor of the right of the plaintiff to maintain the action, and the two circuit judges denying it. In Hilliker v. HaleSearch
-
his action in a foreign jurisdiction was denied by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit. In Wigton v. BoslerSearch
-
as Colt and Putnam, Circuit Judges, in 89 and 95 Fed., and made a decree in accordance with such views. In Hale v. TylerSearch
-
Judge Putnam, regarding himself bound by the decision of the circuit court of appeals in his own circuit, in Hale v. HardonSearch
-
supra, follows the authority of that case, but he added some further views to show that the receiver in Hale v. HardonSearch
-
rights of action which vested, not in the receiver, but in the creditors. He referred also to the case of Hayward v. LeesonSearch
-
City of London v. PerkinsSearch
-
Brown's Parl.Cas.Toml. ed. 602, decided in 1734, and Mayor of York v. PilkingtonSearch
-
The demurrer was therefore overruled. On the other hand, in Bouverie v. PrenticeSearch
-
put an end to litigation. Here, no one issue could have tried the cause between any two of the parties. See also Ward v. DukeSearch
-
a right to object to the joining of any distinct and unconnected causes of action. To the same effect is Birkley v. PresgraveSearch
-
In Weale v. West-MiddlesexSearch
-
Ch. 358 (decided in 1820), the Lord Chancellor, in holding that the suit would not lie, referred to the case of York v. PilkingtonSearch
-
In Marselis v. MorrisSearch
-
by the separate plaintiffs, would not confer jurisdiction on the court upon any principle of equity. In Demarest v. HardhamSearch
-
of the suit is to give protection to each suitor in the enjoyment of a common right. To the same effect is Rowbotham v. JonesSearch
-
there were cases arising by reason of the so-called Schuyler frauds, such as New York & New Haven R. Company v. SchuylerSearch
-
by Davis, J., in 34 N.Y., the case was not decided upon any one head of equity jurisdiction. In Railroad Company v. MayorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial