Beasley v. Fox

173 F.2d 920, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 327, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2949
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedFebruary 28, 1949
DocketNo. 9795
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 173 F.2d 920 (Beasley v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beasley v. Fox, 173 F.2d 920, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 327, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2949 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

Opinion

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

Fox and Phoenix Indemnity Company, appellees, sued Keystone Mutual Casualty Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, hereafter referred to as Keystone, in the District Court. While the suit was pending, although tried and awaiting findings and conclusions, Keystone was dissolved by decree of a Pennsylvania court. Thereafter Beasley, appellant, was appointed by said District Court receiver of the local assets of Keystone. He thereupon moved for an order abating the suit of Fox, et al., v. Keystone ; but the court, without acting upon the motion, filed its findings and conclusions and entered a money judgment against Keystone. Later the court did hear and deny consolidated motions to vacate the judgment and abate the action. This appeal is from that order.

In Sedgwick v. Beasley, Receiver, D.C.Cir., 173 F.2d 918, a companion case to this, decided today, we hold that no right of action survived the dissolution of Keystone, none being accorded by Pennslyvania law. It is immaterial that the suit was pending at the time of Keystone’s dissolution, or that it had been tried and was awaiting final decision and judgment. The appellees contend that dissolution and appointment [921]*921of a liquidator did not have the effect of abating the action because neither the decree, nor statute, in terms so provided. This argument ignores the settled law as stated in Sedgwick v. Beasley, supra, that dissolution of a corporation terminates right of litigation unless preserved by law of the incorporating state, just as death of a person ends all right of action against him. Accordingly we must reverse the action of the District Court and remand the cause with directions to enter an order to vacate the judgment and abate the suit.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

FBME Ltd. v. Mnuchin
709 F. App'x 4 (D.C. Circuit, 2017)
Eiche v. Blankenau
570 N.W.2d 190 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1997)
Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n v. Mid-States Construction Co.
322 N.W.2d 373 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1982)
Stone v. Gibson Refrigerator Sales Corporation
366 F. Supp. 733 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Christensen v. Boss
138 N.W.2d 716 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1965)
Newmark v. Abeel
102 F. Supp. 993 (S.D. New York, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 F.2d 920, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 327, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beasley-v-fox-cadc-1949.