First National Bank v. Hingham Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The eirst case was a bill in equity filed March 8, 1877, brought by twenty judgment creditors, under the St. of 1870, o. 224, § 42, “in behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the Hingham Manufacturing Company,” a corporation established under the laws of the Commonwealth, against said corporation, and David Whiton, Andrew C. Cushing, Eleazer P. Dunbar, Richard Harrison and Charles M. Strauss, its directors, to enforce the personal liability of the latter, on the…
Read the full summary
The eirst case was a bill in equity filed March 8, 1877, brought by twenty judgment creditors, under the St. of 1870, o. 224, § 42, “in behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the Hingham Manufacturing Company,” a corporation established under the laws of the Commonwealth, against said corporation, and David Whiton, Andrew C. Cushing, Eleazer P. Dunbar, Richard Harrison and Charles M. Strauss, its directors, to enforce the personal liability of the latter, on the ground that on December 17, 1875, the time of the commencement of the action of the Broadway National Bank (one of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSoule, J.
The answers of the defendants contain demurrers to each bill, and assign two causes of demurrer; first, that it is *565not brought by one creditor, but by several creditors; second, that it is not brought in behalf of the plaintiffs and all other creditors of the corporation.
The first cause of demurrer is based on a literal construction of the St. of 1870, a. 224, § 42, which provides that “the judgment creditor, or any other creditor, may file a bill in behalf of himself and all other creditors of the corporation,” &c. It is provided by the Gen. Sts. e. 3, § 7, that in the construction of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Chamberlin v. Huguenot Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Pope v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Athol National Bank v. Hingham Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by15 opinions
- Veeder v. . MudgettNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Hancock National Bank v. EllisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- E. S. Parks Shellac Co. v. HarrisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Old Colony Boot & Shoe Co. v. Parker-Sampson-Adams Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Monotype Composition Co. v. KiernanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.