H. Wolfe & Co. v. Simmons
Mississippi Supreme Court
Enom the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. F. A. Montgomeiíy, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The idea of the court below that the directors could not be held liable unless brought, as stockholders, within § 844, code 1892, is wholly unsound. The plaintiffs should have been allowed to show that their money was lost to them by the fraud of the directors and cashier. JJelan v. Case, 2 Am. St. Rep., 81; Sealy.
Read the full summary
Enom the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. F. A. Montgomeiíy, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The idea of the court below that the directors could not be held liable unless brought, as stockholders, within § 844, code 1892, is wholly unsound. The plaintiffs should have been allowed to show that their money was lost to them by the fraud of the directors and cashier. JJelan v. Case, 2 Am. St. Rep., 81; Sealy. Baker, 8 lb., 592; Marshall v. Bank, 17 lb., 84. Conceding the bank to have been liable for the act of its-cashier, there is nothing in the…
1Opinion of the CourtTerral, J.
H. Wolfe & Co., a mercantile firm of Chicago, Ill., on November 22, 1895, sold to J. Gidwitz, of Glendoro, Miss., a bill of goods to the amount of $151.28. A draft for the amount, accompanied by the bill of lading of the goods, was sent to the Clarksdale Bank & Trust Company for collection, with direction to deliver the bill of lading only upon payment of the draft. The .draft and the bill of lading were received by the bank, and were turned over by its cashier to Gidwitz. Gidwitz testified that he paid the bank the amount of the draft, but Broadus, the cashier of the bank, testified that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sweet v. Montpelier Savings Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Boyd v. ApplewhiteMississippi Supreme Court · 1920
- Ellis v. H. P. Gates Mercantile Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1912