TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parks v. United States Bankers' Corp.

PARKS v. UNITED STATES BANKERS' CORPORATION

Parks v. United States Bankers' Corp., 140 F. 160 (1905)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
July 10, 1905
Judges
Lacombe
Citations
140 F. 1601905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4779
Syllabus
Corporations — Foreign Corporations — Receivers—Grounds for Appointment. A court will not appoint a receiver for a corporation of another state in a suit by stockholders, where it does not appear that it is insolvent or even indebted, and no proceedings for dissolution have been brought in the state of its domicile.
Summary
In Equity. The bill prays dissolution of defendant corporation, and distribution of its property among those entitled thereto. The present application is for the appointment of some suitable person as temporary receiver.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lacombe

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a controversy between stockholders of a Maine corporation. The owners of 2,982 shares unite in prayer for appointment of receiver, the owners of 3,360 shares oppose the application. No creditor appears. On the contrary, there seem to be no creditors, while the assets are concededly about $20,000. There has been no judgment entered, nor execution returned unsatisfied, no receivers appointed in the home state, nothing to indicate insolvency, or the necessity of protecting the assets for the benefit of creditors. There is no reason why the parties should not take their controversy to the state of Maine, which created the corporation, and which alone has power to dissolve it. When receivers are there appointed, this court will appoint ancillary receivers to conserve any property which may be here; but as the case now stands, there is no reason certainly why this court should appoint a temporary receiver, nor interfere with the management of the internal affairs of this foreign corporation.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11920: 11924: 11927: 11932: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ward v. Foulkrod264 F. 627 (3d Cir. 1920)
  2. Burnrite Coal Briquette Co. v. Riggs274 U.S. 208 (1927)
  3. Maguire v. Mortgage Co. of America203 F. 858 (2d Cir. 1913)
  4. Williamson v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co.56 F.2d 503 (7th Cir. 1932)
  5. Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corporation1924 OK 903, 229 P. 1048

Most recent

  1. Williamson v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co.56 F.2d 503 (7th Cir. 1932)
  2. Burnrite Coal Briquette Co. v. Riggs274 U.S. 208 (1927)
  3. Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corporation1924 OK 903, 229 P. 1048
  4. Ward v. Foulkrod264 F. 627 (3d Cir. 1920)
  5. Maguire v. Mortgage Co. of America203 F. 858 (2d Cir. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list