Warren v. Para Rubber Shoe Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two BILLS IN EQUITY, each filed July 5, 1893, by the executors of the will of Samuel D. Warren, in behalf of themselves and all other stockholders of the Para Rubber Shoe Company similarly situated; the first being against that corporation, William S. Houghton, George D. Clapp, and Elizabeth E. Coolidge, administratrix of the estate of Albert L. Coolidge, to enforce claims of the corporation against the members of the late firm of Houghton, Coolidge, and Company, founded…
Read the full summary
Two BILLS IN EQUITY, each filed July 5, 1893, by the executors of the will of Samuel D. Warren, in behalf of themselves and all other stockholders of the Para Rubber Shoe Company similarly situated; the first being against that corporation, William S. Houghton, George D. Clapp, and Elizabeth E. Coolidge, administratrix of the estate of Albert L. Coolidge, to enforce claims of the corporation against the members of the late firm of Houghton, Coolidge, and Company, founded upon their “'alleged wrongful and fraudulent conduct as selling agents of the corporation; and the second against the…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
According to the averments of the present bills, the demurrers to the bills in equity brought by the corporation were sustained, upon the ground that the remedy, if any, was by actions at law. Those, bills in equity have not been laid before us, nor is there anything to show how far the averments therein contained were similar to those of the present bills. It is now averred that the former bills in equity alleged “ some of the facts hereinbefore set forth.” There is nothing to show what facts were then omitted, but so far as concerns the question whether the remedy of the corporation was at…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Brinckerhoff v. . BostwickNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Brinckerhoff v. . BostwickNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Brewer v. Proprietors of the Boston TheatreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Booth v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1881
- Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Parker v. SimpsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- City of Boston v. SantosuossoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- von Arnim v. American Tube WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- United Zinc Companies v. HarwoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Piper v. ChildsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.