Helm v. Smith-Fee Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to enforce the liability of stockholders in defendant corporation. J. H. Whitely, attorney for plaintiff, petitioned the court to be allowed as compensation for his services the sum of $1,100, or such other sum as the court might deem just and reasonable. From an order, Moer, J., denying his petition, he appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
START, C. J.1
This action was brought under G. S. 1894, c. 76, for the purpose of enforcing the stockholders’ liability, and was prosecuted by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other creditors of the defendant corporation. Other creditors intervened, and proved their claims, and the action was prosecuted to final judgment against the stockholders. As a result of the prosecution of the action, there will be realized a common fund amounting to over $13,000, which will be available for distribution to the several creditors. The attorney for the plaintiff petitioned the trial court for an…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kertson v. Great Northern Express Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Seibert v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Helm v. Smith-Fee Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Dwinnell v. BadgerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Leggett v. Missouri State Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
- Bosch v. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Assn.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Archie E. Simonson v. United Press International, Inc., and the Associated Press, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
- Converse, Receiver v. Aetna National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906