James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris

Fifth Circuit

James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris

341 F.2d 577, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 21, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6541

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1965

Docket21368

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 341 F.2d 577 (James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris, 341 F.2d 577, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 21, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6541 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

While the stockholders’ derivative suit was pending, sufficient other stockholders joined with the original plaintiff, Palmer, to cause the corporation “Altex” to desire to join in the litigation against other defendants. Thereafter the trial court entered an order realigning Altex as a plaintiff and dismissing Palmer as a plaintiff.

There was no justification for eliminating Palmer, the stockholder, who had commenced the action, merely because the corporation belatedly sought to join in his action. Cf. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Jenkins, 7 F.R.D. 197, S.D.N.Y.1947.

There is no merit in appellees’ motion that since Altex has now filed for bankruptcy, the ease should be stayed until the trustee determines whether he wishes to continue the suit in Altex’s behalf. Meyer v. Fleming, 327 U.S. 161, 66 S.Ct. 382, 90 L.Ed. 595.

The order of dismissal was error. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

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