Marble v. Hasberg
JOHN M. MARBLE v. WILLIAM HASBERG, Respondent JOHN M. MARBLE v. LOU ANGER
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
THE COURT.
The questions invo'ved in the appeal in these consolidated cases are the same as those raised in Dietzel v. Anger, L. A. No. 15987 (ante, p. 373 [65 Pac. (2d) 803]), this day decided. The trial court in the instant case reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs, representing the holders of bonds of a corporation in default, had no right to sue defendants, stockholders of the issuing corporation, where rights of action under or because of the bonds were vested in a trustee which had not been asked to sue. For the reasons stated in Dietzel v. Anger, supra, the lower court’s decision was correct.
The judgment is affirmed.
Rehearing denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Dietzel v. Anger L. A. 15987 · 1937-02-26