TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Holton v. Wallace

Holton v. Wallace, 77 F. 61 (3d Cir. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 23, 1896
Judges
Butler, Dallas, Wales
Citations
77 F. 6123 C.C.A. 711896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2214
Cited by 2
Headnotes
Corporations — Suit by Stookiioi.dkr on Behalf of Corporation. A suit by a stockholder to enforce rights existing in the corporation cannot be sustained where it is not alleged that any attempt has been made to secure redress through the corporation, or through a receiver in charge of its property, and where neither the receiver nor the corporation is made a party. 66 Ted. 409. affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This was a suit in equity by Forbes Holton, as a stockholder of the Newcastle Northern Railway Company, “on behalf of himself and other stockholders of said company,” against O. $. Wallace and several other individuals, to enforce alleged rights of the corporation. The circuit court dismissed the bill, with costs (66 Fed. 409), and the complainant has appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Butler

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

BUTLER, District Judge.

After a. careful examination of the several errors assigned, we are unable to sustain any of them. The opinion of the circuit court is a sufficient vindication of its action in dismissing the bill. The causes of suit set up are not vested in the plaintiff, but in the corporation, or the receivers of its property, appointed by the court, and the plaintiff has not shown himself qualified to sue on the rights of either. What the circuit court has said in this respect so fully expresses our views that we adopt it, and decide the case accordingly. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →
1897: 11901: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hutton v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co.83 F. 17 (Cir. Ct. Del. 1897)
  2. Bimber v. Calivada Colonization Co.110 F. 58 (1901)

Most recent

  1. Bimber v. Calivada Colonization Co.110 F. 58 (1901)
  2. Hutton v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co.83 F. 17 (Cir. Ct. Del. 1897)

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