Legal Opinion

Herrup v. Stoneham

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided October 18, 1926No. 19PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The facts recited show that the trustee in bankruptcy does not think plaintiff has a cause of action against him, and plaintiff agrees with the assertion. The order complained of amounts to no more than a consent order of discontinuance as to the trustee. Why or how the persons, whom the plaintiff wishes to sue and has sued, can assert a right -to keep the trustee as a defendant is hard to see.

A plaintiff can sue whom he likes at his peril; if he sues the wrong people, or too many or too few people, so much the worse for him. In this ease, if Stoneham et al. think the plaintiff’s bill fails…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Collins v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. ArnsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Jones v. Securities and Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
  2. Moss v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
  3. National Weeklies, Inc. v. ReynoldsDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1942
  4. Pioneer Grain Corp. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
  5. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API