Legal Opinion

Barfield v. Zenith Tire & Rubber Co.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided December 8, 1924No. 300PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KILLITS, District Judge.

The main ease is a stockholders’ action against an insolvent corporation, a receiver being appointed by this court to administer the estate, the eomplaint containing the customary allegations and prayer. ^ Thereafter the receiver was permitted, under the main ease, to bring an action against James W. Wilson and five others, none of whom were parties to the main case, to recover the face value of 25,000 shares of stock in the insolvent corporation, which stock, it was asserted, had been issued by the defendants, as directors, to one of their number, Wilson, without…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Porter v. SabinSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. White v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  4. Public Util. Comm'n of Kan. v. LandonSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  5. Rouse v. LetcherSupreme Court of the United States · 1895

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Weiss v. York HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
  2. Weiss v. York HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
  3. Bovay v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1937
  4. Standish v. Gold Creek Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
  5. Roark v. BauerDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1960

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API