Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mccandless Vs. Furlaud

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 11, 1935

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

73 entries 2 linked 71 unlinked
Show
  1. Atlantic Trust Co. Vs. Chapman US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1908
  2. Casey Vs. Cavaroc US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  3. U.S. 140 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court McCandless v. Furlaud
    Search
  4. U.S. 140 (1935) McCandless v. Furlaud
    Search
  5. moneys fraudulently diverted to the prejudice of creditors. P. 296 U. S. 160 . (4) Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn
    Search
  6. promoters and their agents being then the only shareholders, and that, under the doctrine of Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn
    Search
  7. unless the liability for such misconduct has been effectually released. Dickerman Page 296 U. S. 157 v. Northern
    Search
  8. Brewster v. Hatch
    Search
  9. Erlanger v. New
    Search
  10. Gluckstein v. Barnes
    Search
  11. Yeiser v. United
    Search
  12. Even for erring directors, however, there may at times be absolution if all the shareholders are satisfied. Holmes v. Willard
    Search
  13. N.Y. 75, 25 N.E. 1083. The interests affected by approval will shape the power to approve. Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn
    Search
  14. subscribing for new shares, were in the plight of those ahead of them and could have no better case. Davis v. Las
    Search
  15. was by less than all the shareholders and without disclosure of the facts to others. Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn
    Search
  16. and wantonly excessive. Cost, in and of itself, though far from conclusive, is still evidence of value ( Parmenter v. Fitzpatrick
    Search
  17. N.E. 1032), especially where there is no market value in the strict or proper sense ( Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins
    Search
  18. by proof that they had been true to their fiduciary duties and that their conduct had been fair and just. Geddes v. Anaconda
    Search
  19. assets, the gift could have been annulled either by the creditors, directly or in their behalf by a receiver. Casey v. Cavaroc
    Search
  20. Hamor v. Taylor-Rice
    Search
  21. American Can Co. v. Erie
    Search
  22. Sweet v. Lang
    Search
  23. Gillet v. Moody
    Search
  24. Pittsburg Carbon Co. v. McMillin
    Search
  25. their power when shareholders and promoters were in substance the same persons. Cf. California-Calaveras Mining Co. v. Walls
    Search
  26. Pittsburg Mining Co. v. Spooner
    Search
  27. intangible assets as well as tangible, for administration as a trust in accordance with equitable principles. Hollins v. Brierfield
    Search
  28. Bosworth v. Allen
    Search
  29. to bring them back into the trust. These considerations, without more, would separate Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn
    Search
  30. escaped through the receipt of some property or money if the amount or value is inadequate. Big Spring Electric Co. v. Kitzmiller
    Search
  31. Commonwealth v. Reading
    Search
  32. In re Wyoming Valley Ice Co., 153 F. 787, 793, aff'd sub nom. Wiegand v. Albert
    Search
  33. the securities are valid in the hands of innocent purchasers, whatever the consideration ( Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Dilworth
    Search
  34. released. There are decisions in Pennsylvania that the Constitution is not self-executing. Grange National Bank v. Collman
    Search
  35. incoming shareholders, though the corporation was solvent and there was no injury to creditors. Spangler Brewing Co. v. McHenry
    Search
  36. as the representative of creditors, and this though they became such after the securities were issued. Bingaman v. Commonwealth
    Search
  37. Trust Co., 15 F.2d 119, and cases there collected. Cf. Coleman v. Tepel
    Search
  38. Krebs v. Oberrender
    Search
  39. Finletter v. Acetylene
    Search
  40. consent is in derogation of the public policy of the state or the prohibition of a statute. Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's
    Search
  41. Kent v. Quicksilver
    Search
  42. Sheldon Hat Blocking Co. v. Eickemeyer
    Search
  43. Mann v. Edinburgh
    Search
  44. Society of Practical Knowledge v. Abbott
    Search
  45. plainly within the scope of that exception. There was here a statutory prohibition, rooted in public policy. Gearhart v. Standard
    Search
  46. stock, which may leave the assets unimpaired, and a withdrawal of cash, which puts the enterprise in peril. Cf. Arnold v. Searing
    Search
  47. Eureka Mining, Smelting & Power Co. v. Lively
    Search
  48. by any compact between themselves to make the duty less. In considering the effect of Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn
    Search
  49. Byron and Chaucer were purchasers in due course, and not agents and confederates wearing the cloak of purchasers. King v. Doane
    Search
  50. Canajoharie National Bank v. Diefendorf
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial