Connecticut River Savings-Bank v. Fiske
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in Equity, against the defendants, as stockholders in the Charlestown Boot & Shoe Company, located in Charlestown. Facts found by a referee. The company was incorporated in 1871, having for its object a dividend of profits, with a capital stock fixed at $25,000, of which $19,900 only has been paid in.
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity, against the defendants, as stockholders in the Charlestown Boot & Shoe Company, located in Charlestown. Facts found by a referee. The company was incorporated in 1871, having for its object a dividend of profits, with a capital stock fixed at $25,000, of which $19,900 only has been paid in. April 8, 1872, tlie plaintiffs loaned the company $5,000, for which the treasurer of the company gave the company’s note, signed by him as treasurer, and by two of its directors, Dunsmore and Osgood, as sureties. May 4, 1872, they loaned tbe company $2,000 more, and May 20, 1872, $5,000…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
I. The defendants claim that the bill is multifarious, as it joins other creditors than the bank. This objection, if it were valid, might be obviated by an amendment'such as the plaintiffs have offered to make; but the bill is not open to the charge of multifariousness.. By our statutes, remedies of the character here sought must be prosecuted by bill in chancery. Gen. St., c. 136, s. 1. “A creditor seeking to enforce it must join in the suit all the parties in interest who can be affected by the decree. The suit must be prosecuted for the benefit of all the creditorsj and not for a portion…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brinkerhoff v. BrownNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
- Rogers v. . WeirNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Dauchy v. BrownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
3Cited by2 opinions
- Swan v. BurnhamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Abbott v. Wolfeborough Savings BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895