Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Anderson Vs. Abbott

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 06, 1944

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

74 entries 10 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Richmond Vs. Irons US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1887
  2. Lantry Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · May 27, 1901
  3. Ohio Valley National Bank Vs. Hulitt US Supreme Court · Jan 07, 1907
  4. Early Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1930
  5. Forrest Vs. Jack US Supreme Court · Feb 04, 1935
  6. Alabama Power Co. Vs. Ickes US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1938
  7. Rice Vs. Sanger US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1892
  8. Earle Vs. Carson US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1903
  9. Christopher Vs. Brusselback US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1938
  10. Sanger Vs. Upton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  11. U.S. 349 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Anderson v. Abbott
    Search
  12. U.S. 349 (1944) Anderson v. Abbott
    Search
  13. a transaction which the Page 321 U. S. 354 Kentucky court later set aside. BancoKentucky Co.'s Receiver v. National
    Search
  14. brought an action against Banco as holder of substantially all of the Bank's shares. He obtained a judgment ( Keyes v. American
    Search
  15. Life Ins. Co., 1 F.Supp. 512) which was affirmed on appeal. Laurent v. Anderson
    Search
  16. The case is here on certiorari. I We are met at the outset with the contention that the decision in Laurent v. Anderson
    Search
  17. Keyser v. Hetz
    Search
  18. Pauly v. State
    Search
  19. sue both -- partial satisfaction of the judgment against one being a pro tanto discharge of the other. Ericson v. Slomer
    Search
  20. F.2d 437. And see Continental Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. O'Neil
    Search
  21. See Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Pelts
    Search
  22. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Barrett
    Search
  23. on contracts made by agents of undisclosed principals Page 321 U. S. 356 ( Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp. v. Bennett
    Search
  24. upon us. But they have no application to suits to enforce a liability which has this statutory origin. Cf. Christopher v. Norvell
    Search
  25. We accept those findings, as they were concurred in by two courts and no clear error is shown. Brewer Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  26. We conclude, however, that the courts below erred in dismissing the bill. It is clear by reason of Early v. Richardson
    Search
  27. his shares to his minor children, he would not have been relieved from liability for this assessment. And see Seabury v. Green
    Search
  28. matter that the transfer was in good faith, without purpose of evasion, and at a time when the bank was solvent. Early v. Richardson
    Search
  29. Page 321 U. S. 357 found in the nature of the transferee and his relationship to the transferor. Cf. Nickalls v. Merry
    Search
  30. liable because his transferee turns out to be irresponsible or impecunious. It is clear that he does not. Earle v. Carson
    Search
  31. who is responsible for the risks of the banking business. The law has been edging towards that result. See Hansen v. Agnew
    Search
  32. Metropolitan Holding Co. v. Snyder
    Search
  33. Barbour v. Thomas
    Search
  34. Nettles v. Rhett
    Search
  35. stock is owned by the transferor. Whether the transfer is made in avoidance of the double liability, as in Corker v. Soper
    Search
  36. in making those purchases or effecting those exchanges, they knew what kind of an enterprise Banco was. See Nettles v. Rhett
    Search
  37. Anderson v. Atkinson
    Search
  38. the scope of the corporate charter, the kind and quality of the corporate undertaking. As was stated in Christopher v. Brusselback
    Search
  39. be bound and his rights foreclosed by authorized corporate action taken without his knowledge or participation. Sanger v. Upton
    Search
  40. Pink v. A.A
    Search
  41. director for mismanagement does not relieve them from liability to the depositors of the subsidiary banks. Cf. Scott v. DeWeese
    Search
  42. The fact that incorporation was desired in order to obtain limited liability does not defeat that purpose. Elenkrieg v. Siebrecht
    Search
  43. Berkey v. Third
    Search
  44. United States v. Milwaukee
    Search
  45. Subsidiary Corporations (1931) pp. 77-81. The cases of fraud make up part of that exception. Linn & Lane Timber Co. v. United
    Search
  46. Donovan v. Purtell
    Search
  47. George v. Rollins
    Search
  48. Higgins v. California
    Search
  49. Oriental Inv. Co. v. Barclay
    Search
  50. Tex.Civ. App. 543, 559, 64 S.W. 80, 88. And see Weisser v. Mursam
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial