Citation network
MarIn Vs. Augendahl
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 1918
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. 142 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Marin v. AugendahlSearch
-
U.S. 142 (1918) Marin v. AugendahlSearch
-
to which they are entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States. See Great Western Telegraph Co. v. PurdySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
on the stockholders is not an independent suit, but simply a step in the original sequestration suit, Ueland v. HauganSearch
-
the corporation as to be represented by it, and a judgment against it is in effect a judgment against them. Hanson v. DavisonSearch
-
Town of Hinckley v. PageSearch
-
Straw & Ellsworth Co. v. KilbourneSearch
-
law, although the stockholders were not personally made parties to the suits wherein the orders were made. Bernheimer v. ConverseSearch
-
U. S. 652 . And see Royal Arcanum v. GreenSearch
-
the corporation is binding on the stockholders in subsequent litigation with the latter. Merchants' National Bank v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Four Minnesota cases are cited as making against these views, but we do not so understand them. In Dwinnell v. KramerSearch
-
issued on receipt of a cash premium. The defense plainly was personal to him. Swing v. HumbirdSearch
-
policy had been fully paid for and had terminated prior to the assessment. That also was a personal defense. In Swing v. RedSearch
-
which was personal to him and to other Minnesota policyholders if there were such. In Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. VanasekSearch
-
required solution, and the power to solve it was lodged in the court. The court did solve it, for, as is said in Neff v. LammSearch
-
application to the court which made it, or on appeal, but it was not void or open to collateral attack. Deposit Bank v. FrankfortSearch
-
Noble v. UnionSearch
-
but nothing more. The true view of the subject is indicated in the following excerpts from our opinion in Fauntleroy v. LumSearch
-
A judgment is conclusive as to all the media concludendi, United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of a general assessment such as was made. This Court frequently has recognized and applied that rule. In Hawkins v. GlennSearch
-
Of similar import are Sanger v. UptonSearch
-
Great Western Telegraph Co. v. PurdySearch
-
Royal Arcanum v. GreenSearch
-
be attacked collaterally by showing an absence of jurisdiction of person or subject matter. The cases of Thompson v. WhitmanSearch
-
Wall. 457, and National Exchange Bank v. WileySearch
-
sequestrate and the receiver's petition for an assessment. Thus, it had jurisdiction of the subject matter. Cooper v. ReynoldsSearch
-
courts of North Dakota as by law or usage are given to such an order in the courts of Minnesota. Hancock National Bank v. FarnumSearch
-
Interstate Commerce Commission v. NorthernSearch
-
the statute under which the court was acting, its receiver could not have maintained this action in North Dakota. Hale v. AllinsonSearch
-
in a foreign state to collect from stockholders resident therein, have both been sustained by this Court. Bernheimer v. ConverseSearch
-
But the Supreme Court of Minnesota has placed this conclusion beyond discussion. In Senour Mfg. Co. v. ChurchSearch
-
Hastings Malting Co. v. IronSearch
-
Nicollet National Bank v. Frisk-TurnerSearch
-
Cuyler v. CitySearch
-
Vencedor Investment Co. v. HighlandSearch
-
and such incidental business as may reasonably be necessary for the purposes of its organization. Hastings Malting Co. v. IronSearch
-
Range Brewing Co., 65 Minn. 28, 31. Again, and obviously, in Nicollet National Bank v. Frisk-TurnerSearch
-
In Thompson v. WhitmanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial