Childs v. N. B. Carlstein Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
Bill by Henry B. Childs and others against the N. B. Carlstein Company and others. Complainants are residents of Cleveland, and citizens of the state of Ohio, and co-partners in business at that place; and the defendant the N. B. Carl-stein Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan, having' its principal office at Bay City, and, prior to the filing of the bill, was engaged in the business of selling, at wholesale and retail, dry…
Read the full summary
Bill by Henry B. Childs and others against the N. B. Carlstein Company and others. Complainants are residents of Cleveland, and citizens of the state of Ohio, and co-partners in business at that place; and the defendant the N. B. Carl-stein Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan, having' its principal office at Bay City, and, prior to the filing of the bill, was engaged in the business of selling, at wholesale and retail, dry goods, clothing, and other merchandise, at Bay City, and at the village of Standish, in Arenac county, Midi., having…
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, District Judge
(after stating the facts). The answers of the defendants so fully repel the charges of fraud made by the bill that the only matters remaining for examination are the legal questions which govern the case. The obstacles to the maintenance of inis bill are many and insuperable. Its scheme aud theory are founded on two propositions, both of which must be established to sustain it. The first is that the assets of a corporation coinstitute a trust fund Cor the benefit of its creditors, of so sacred a nature that any disposition of those assets to secure an antecedent indebtedness in favpr of one…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. MarburySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Scott v. NeelySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Oelrichs v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Buzard v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Gantenbein v. BowlesOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Hawkins v. DonnerbergOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Ford v. TaylorU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1905
- White v. StaehlyConnecticut Superior Court · 1939