Converse v. Mears
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin
At Law. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, as receiver of a defunct Minnesota corporation, to recover from the defendant, a resident of Wisconsin, the c mount of a certain assessment made by a court of equity in Minnesota npon shares of stock owned by the defendant in said corporation.
Read the full summary
At Law. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, as receiver of a defunct Minnesota corporation, to recover from the defendant, a resident of Wisconsin, the c mount of a certain assessment made by a court of equity in Minnesota npon shares of stock owned by the defendant in said corporation. There has been a long and spirired contest in the courts, both state and national, to settle the correct principles and procedure for the enforcement cf the liability of stockholders of insolvent corporations, imposed by the Constitution and statutes of Minnesota and other states. In 1899 (Laws 1899,…
1Opinion of the Court
QUARLES, District Judge.
Every general proposition of law raised by this demurrer has been finally and conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 516, 27 Sup. Ct. 755, 51 L. Ed. 1163, in favor of the plaintiff’s contention. But *769it is insisted that tills court, sitting within the territorial limits of Wisconsin, should follow the adverse ruling of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, as laid down in Finney v. Guy, 106 Wis. 256, 82 N. W. 595, 49 L. R. A. 486, Eau Claire National Bank v. Benson, 106 Wis. 624, 82 N. W. 604, Hunt v. Whewell, 122 Wis. 33, 99 N. W. 599,…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Dennick v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Richmond v. IronsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Booth v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bluefields S. S. Co. v. SteeleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911