Citation network
Mcdonald Vs. Dewey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 28, 1906
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. 510 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court McDonald v. DeweySearch
-
U.S. 510 (1906) McDonald v. DeweySearch
-
to change their investments or to raise money for debts incurred outside the business of such corporation. Bank v. LanierSearch
-
of his stock to another person for his own benefit, as was done by the sale to Jewett in this case. National Bank v. CaseSearch
-
Marcy v. ClarkSearch
-
Nathan v. WhitlockSearch
-
he may be able to show a full or partial consideration for the transfer as between himself and the transferee. Bowden v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 251 . Upon the other hand, in Whitney v. ButlerSearch
-
condition was known or ought to have been known to him. There is no such limitation intimated in the case of Pauly v. StateSearch
-
The case, however, is not directly in point. The most pertinent in this connection is that of Stuart v. HaydenSearch
-
the transferee was insolvent, and was known to the stockholder to be so when he transferred his stock. In Matteson v. DentSearch
-
according to law and that the insolvency of the bank occurred after the death of the intestate, citing Richmond v. IronsSearch
-
the case did not involve the question here presented, but, in delivering the opinion, the prior cases of National Bank v. CaseSearch
-
U. S. 628 , and Bowden v. JohnsonSearch
-
Page 202 U. S. 525 Much stress is laid in the opinion of the court of appeals upon the case of Earle v. CarsonSearch
-
person unless it be made with knowledge of the insolvency of the bank. This was practically the ruling in Earle v. CarsonSearch
-
the vendee were insolvent, if the fact of such insolvency were at the time unknown to the seller. The case of Earle v. CarsonSearch
-
creditors, is only void upon evidence that the deed was made in contemplation of future indebtedness. Sexton v. WheatonSearch
-
Ridgeway v. UnderwoodSearch
-
Bennett v. BedfordSearch
-
Mass. 421. This was the interpretation given to a similar statute by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Peter v. UnionSearch
-
the ruling in the Peter case that he does not continue liable as to future creditors. The case of Bowden v. JohnsonSearch
-
now upholds. In saying this, I do not overlook the fact that the Court in its opinion refers to an Ohio case, Peter v. UnionSearch
-
in 1864 of a provision found in the act of 1863 which might have had the effect of limiting transfers. Earle v. CarsonSearch
-
U. S. 535 from the untrammeled power to make a lawful transfer of stock, as pointed out by this Court in Earle v. CarsonSearch
-
supra, and First Nat. Bank v. LanierSearch
-
cannot be consistently upheld without overthrowing those decisions and substituting a new statute. In National Bank v. CaseSearch
-
the case just reviewed has been reiterated time and time again, and is the settled law of this Court. Thus, in Bowden v. JohnsonSearch
-
of the prior holder as a stockholder are extinguished by the transfer. But it was held by this Court in National Bank v. CaseSearch
-
liability, perpetrated a fraud on the statute. This is the view enforced by the decision of the Chief Justice in Davis v. StevensSearch
-
Again, in Stuart v. HaydenSearch
-
Is this not certain also, in view of the declaration in Stuart v. HaydenSearch
-
which it was the purpose of Congress by the statute to secure. It remains only to briefly notice the case of Peter v. UnionSearch
-
and cited by the Court in its opinion. To understand that case, a prior decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio ( Brown v. HitchcockSearch
-
Ohio St. 667), of which the opinion in the Peter case was but an evolution, must be taken into view. In Brown v. HitchcockSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court McDonald v. DeweySearch
-
Bowden v. JohnsonSearch
-
of Pauly v. StateSearch
-
of Stuart v. HaydenSearch
-
In Matteson v. DentSearch
-
of National Bank v. CaseSearch
-
and Bowden v. JohnsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial