Glenn v. Liggett

54 Citing cases

  1. Wolfle v. United States

    291 U.S. 7 (1934)   Cited 234 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dictation of a letter to a secretary renders the communication non-confidential

    In courts of the United States the common law rule governs. Connecticut Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U.S. 457; Liggett v. Glenn, 51 F. 381; Rosen v. United States, 245 U.S. 467. There is a conflict in the decisions as to the admissibility of privileged communications where testimony thereof is procured from witnesses other than husband or wife, attorney and client, or physician and patient.

  2. Great Western Telegraph Company v. Purdy

    162 U.S. 329 (1896)   Cited 64 times
    In Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Purdy, 162 U.S. 329 (supra), after holding that the order of assessment was conclusive and binding on every stockholder without personal notice to him, it was said: "But the order was not, and did not purport to be, a judgment against any one. It did not undertake to determine the question whether any particular stockholder was or was not liable in any amount.

    The order of assessment, whether made by the directors as provided in the contract of subscription, or by the court as the successor in this respect of the directors, was doubtless, unless directly attacked and set aside by appropriate judicial proceedings, conclusive evidence of the necessity for making such an assessment, and to that extent bound every stockholder, without personal notice to him. Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U.S. 319; Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 533; Glenn v. Marbury, 145 U.S. 499. But the order was not, and did not purport to be, a judgment against any one. It did not undertake to determine the question whether any particular stockholder was or was not liable in any amount.

  3. State of Ohio ex Rel. Squire v. Porter

    21 Cal.2d 45 (Cal. 1942)   Cited 6 times

    The defendant stockholder may set up personal defenses ( Chandler v. Peketz, 297 U.S. 609 [56 S.Ct. 602, 80 L.Ed. 881]), but once the obligation of the stockholders is determined in an assessment proceeding, the existence and amount of the debt and the proportional liability of each are res judicata and not subjectto collateral attack in an action brought in another state to enforce collection against a non-resident stockholder. ( Selig v. Hamilton, 234 U.S. 652 [34 S.Ct. 926, 58 L.Ed. 1518]; Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U.S. 142 [38 S.Ct. 452, 62 L.Ed. 1038]; Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 533 [10 S.Ct. 867, 34 L.Ed. 262]; see Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 186, comment c; 13 Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations (perm. ed.), § 6522, p. 953.) It is unconstitutional to impose as a prerequisite of suit a condition impossible to fulfill on the pretext of regulating procedure.

  4. Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express Inc.

    191 Ga. 502 (Ga. 1941)   Cited 34 times
    In Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express, 191 Ga. 502 (13 S.E.2d 337, 137 A.L.R. 934), it was sought, as in this case, to recover of residents of this state assessments levied in similar proceedings in the courts of the State of New York against members of a mutual insurance corporation of that State. Their policies, in many respects similar to the policy in this case, contained no provision making them members by acceptance of the policies; but each policy did contain a recital that it embodied all agreements relating to the insurance, as in this case.

    See Strickland v. Lowry National Bank, 140 Ga. 653 ( 79 S.E. 539); Anderson v. Anderson, 150 Ga. 142 ( 103 S.E. 160). 2. Touching the proposition of law referred to in the second headnote, see Swing v. Humbird, 94 Minn. 1 ( 101 N.W. 938); Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U.S. 319 ( 9 Sup. Ct. 739, 33 L. ed. 184); Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U.S. 329 ( 16 L. ed. 810, 40 L. ed. 986); Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 533 ( 10 Sup. Ct. 867, 34 L. ed. 262); Selig v. Hamilton, 234 U.S. 652 ( 34 Sup. Ct. 926, 58 L. ed. 1518); and the authorities collected in Chandler v. Peketz, 297 U.S. 609 ( 56 Sup. Ct. 602, 180 L. ed. 881, and citations in the note). The rule referred to is based on the theory that in litigation to which the corporation is a party its stockholders are represented by it to the extent that they are bound by any judgment rendered against the corporation in so far as it relates to corporate matters; and that the action of the court in determining the necessity for, and fixing the amount of, the assessments, is merely performing a duty which would have fallen on its directors had it continued to be a going concern; the court substituting its decree for the formal call of the directors, which call is ordinarily a prerequisite to fixing an individual liability on the stockholders.

  5. Redrying Company v. Gurley

    147 S.E. 676 (N.C. 1929)   Cited 5 times

    (Italics ours.) Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U.S. 319, 9 Sup. Ct., Rep., 739; (Anno.), 33; 184; Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 533, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep., 867, 34, 262; Glenn v. Marbury, 145 U.S. 499, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep., 914, 36, 790."

  6. Mitchell Liberty Clay P. Co.

    139 A. 853 (Pa. 1927)   Cited 11 times

    There are several Pennsylvania cases which are of assistance in indicating the length to which the courts of a particular state will go in applying the rule of comity as to the appointment of receivers: Frowert v. Blank, 205 Pa. 299; Smith v. Machinery Co., 83 Pa. Super. 143; Solis v. Blank, 199 Pa. 600; Jagode v. Smalley, 10 Pa. Super. 320; Bagby v. R. R., 86 Pa. 291. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, liquidates the claim of the State of Ohio as one of the debts of the Liberty Clay Products Co. and is a judgment entitled to full faith and credit under the federal Constitution: French v. Harding, 235 Pa. 79; Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640; Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Furniture Co., 108 Michigan 34; Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 533; Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U.S. 319. The trial court's finding that the amount found due by the Ohio court is a just debt of Liberty Clay Products Company is conclusive upon appellants: Himrod v. McFayden, 283 Pa. 103; Glenn v. Trees, 276 Pa. 165, 167; Atlas Portland Cement Co. v. Brick Clay Co., 280 Pa. 449, 453.

  7. Wright, Ins. v. Hix

    203 Ala. 425 (Ala. 1919)   Cited 7 times

    The liability of a stockholder of a corporation is determined by the laws of the state in which it was organized, and not by the laws of the state of the domicile of the stockholder. Relfe v. Rundle, 103 U.S. 222, 26 L.Ed. 337; Canada Sou. Ry. Co. v. Gebhard, 109 U.S. 527, 3 Sup. Ct. 363, 27 L.Ed. 1020; Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-Amer. Co., 189 U.S. 230, 23 Sup. Ct. 517, 47 L.Ed. 786; Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U.S. 332, 9 Sup. Ct. 739, 33 L.Ed. 192; Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 544, 10 Sup. Ct. 867, 34 L.Ed. 267; Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U.S. 533, 27 Sup. Ct. 755, 51 L.Ed. 1163, 1176. The courts of Alabama are required by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States to give effect to the decree of the superior court of Fulton County, Ga., judicially determining that it is necessary for the protection and payment of creditors of the Empire Life Insurance Company that all stock subscriptions be collected by plaintiff.

  8. Harr v. Wright

    164 Misc. 395 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1936)   Cited 1 times

    It may be that this cause of action never came into existence until the receiver made a demand upon defendant for the balance of the unpaid purchase price of the stock. Such a holding would accord with Hawkins v. Glenn ( 131 U.S. 319; 9 S.Ct. 739; 33 L.Ed. 184); Glenn v. Liggett ( 135 U.S. 533; 10 S.Ct. 867; 34 L.Ed. 262); Glenn v. Marbury ( 145 U.S. 499; 12 S.Ct. 914; 36 L.Ed. 790). This same question was presented in Glenn v. Garth (60 Hun, 584; affd., 133 N.Y. 18; writ of error dismissed, 147 U.S. 360; 13 S.Ct. 350; 37 L.Ed. 203).

  9. First National Bank v. Maine

    284 U.S. 312 (1932)   Cited 157 times
    In First National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312, 52 S. Ct. 174, 76 L. Ed. 313, this had been extended to shares of stock in a local corporation.

    On the fundamental economic and political theory that taxation and protection may well go hand in hand, Maine should therefore have the right to tax the shareholder. See Jellnick v. Huron Co., 177 U.S. 1; Tappan v. Merchants Bank, 19 Wall. 490; Glen v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 533. Stock in a Maine corporation cannot be validly transferred except on the books of the corporation; the corporation cannot sell out its assets over the objection of a minority stockholder; and dissolution proceedings must be brought in the equity courts of Maine.

  10. Harrigan v. Bergdoll

    270 U.S. 560 (1926)   Cited 26 times
    In Harrigan v. Bergdoll, 270 U.S. 560, 46 S.Ct. 413, 70 L.Ed. 733, a trustee in bankruptcy brought suit to recover assessments upon unpaid stock in a corporation.

    The nature, the extent, and the conditions of the liability of a stockholder on account of stock not full-paid depend primarily upon the law of the State or country by which the corporation was created. Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U.S. 533, 548. Compare Benedict v. Ratner, 268 U.S. 353, 359. That law determines whether the liability is to the corporation or is to creditors. Compare Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243, 253; Selig v. Hamilton, 234 U.S. 652, 658. If the liability is to the corporation, it passes like other choses in action to the trustee in bankruptcy.