Earnhardt v. . Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Earnhardt v. . Brown

148 S.E. 25, 197 N.C. 204, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 191

DecidedMay 15, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 25 (Earnhardt v. . Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earnhardt v. . Brown, 148 S.E. 25, 197 N.C. 204, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 191 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Equality among the stockholders of an insolvent building and loan association requires, first, that the solvent credits of the association be collected (thus placing the borrowing and nonborrowing stockholders on a parity), second, that its debts’be paid, and, third, that the balance be distributed according to the respective rights of the parties. Rendleman v. Stoessel, 195 N. C., 640, 143 S. E., 219. This is what the defendants are trying to accord the plaintiffs in the present suit. It is all they are entitled to receive.

But failing in their effort to have the payments made on their stock deducted from the amount borrowed, which would credit them with all they have paid on their stock at the expense of the other stockholders, the plaintiffs take the position that the Perpetual Building & Loan Association is not amenable to the Federal Bankruptcy Act, and that the trustee in bankruptcy is not a proper party to this action.

*206 Tbe proceeding in bankruptcy, which has been pending for more than two years, and in which plaintiffs filed claim for the amount paid on their stock, is not void on its face. The allegations of the petition are sufficient to give the Federal Court jurisdiction, and it has decided the question against plaintiffs’ contention. First Nat. Bank v. Klugg, 186 U. S., 202. This distinguishes the instant case from Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U. S., 248, strongly relied on by plaintiffs. The same point was raised and resolved against the position of the plaintiffs in Rendleman v. Stoessel, supra.

Furthermore, it could avail the plaintiffs nothing to have this question decided in their favor. What boots it to them whether they pay their note to the trustee in bankruptcy or to receivers appointed by the State court? They must pay it to somebody. Up to the present, they have been accorded the same consideration as the other borrowing stockholders. They have no right to demand more. It is not contended that they have received less. The plaintiffs have no just cause for complaint.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Stacy, C. J.

Equality among the stockholders of an insolvent building and loan association requires, first, that the solvent credits of the association be collected (thus placing the borrowing and nonborrowing stockholders on a parity), second, that its debts’be paid, and, third, that the balance be distributed according to the respective rights of the parties. Rendleman v. Stoessel, 195 N. C., 640, 143 S. E., 219. This is what the defendants are trying to accord the plaintiffs in the present suit. It is all they are entitled to receive.

But failing in their effort to have the payments made on their stock deducted from the amount borrowed, which would credit them with all they have paid on their stock at the expense of the other stockholders, the plaintiffs take the position that the Perpetual Building & Loan Association is not amenable to the Federal Bankruptcy Act, and that the trustee in bankruptcy is not a proper party to this action.

*206 Tbe proceeding in bankruptcy, which has been pending for more than two years, and in which plaintiffs filed claim for the amount paid on their stock, is not void on its face. The allegations of the petition are sufficient to give the Federal Court jurisdiction, and it has decided the question against plaintiffs’ contention. First Nat. Bank v. Klugg, 186 U. S., 202. This distinguishes the instant case from Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U. S., 248, strongly relied on by plaintiffs. The same point was raised and resolved against the position of the plaintiffs in Rendleman v. Stoessel, supra.

Furthermore, it could avail the plaintiffs nothing to have this question decided in their favor. What boots it to them whether they pay their note to the trustee in bankruptcy or to receivers appointed by the State court? They must pay it to somebody. Up to the present, they have been accorded the same consideration as the other borrowing stockholders. They have no right to demand more. It is not contended that they have received less. The plaintiffs have no just cause for complaint.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 25, 197 N.C. 204, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnhardt-v-brown-nc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack