Lum v. Robertson

Supreme Court

Lum v. Robertson

73 U.S. 277, 18 L. Ed. 743, 6 Wall. 277, 1867 U.S. LEXIS 970

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 23, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 73 U.S. 277 (Lum v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lum v. Robertson, 73 U.S. 277, 18 L. Ed. 743, 6 Wall. 277, 1867 U.S. LEXIS 970 (1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice DAVIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

The decision of this court in Bacon et al. v. Robertson, * disposes of this case.

The Commercial Bank of Natchez, Mississippi, by judicial forfeiture, was deprived of its. charter, and Robertson appointed a trustee to wind up its affairs. In discharge of hia trust, having paid all the debts of the insolvent corporation, a large surplus remained. The object of the suit in Bacon v. Robertson, was to establish the title of the stockholders to this surplus. Robertson refused to distribute the effects in his hands, claiming that, since the dissolution of the corporation, the stockholders had no rights which this court could recognize. But the court, in an elaborate opinion, decide that the trustee cannot deny the title of the stockholders to a distribution, and that, by the laws of Mississippi and the general principles of equity jurisprudence, the surplus of the *280 assets which may remain after the payment of debts and expenses, belong to the stockholders of the bank.

After this decision, Ferguson was appointed receiver, and Robertson ordered to deliver to him the effects of the bank, which he held as trustee. In pursuance of this order, the two notes on which the suit is brought were delivered to Ferguson, and the name of Robertson, in whom the legal title rests, is used to enforce their collection.

Lum, a delinquent debtor of the bank, cannot plead the extinguishment of his debt by the judgment of forfeiture, for the court (in the case cited) say, the debt exists and can be recovered, and that it is the duty of the trustee to reduce the property of the bank to money, and distribute it among the stockholders. Nor can Lum be permitted to show (not having a meritorious defence to the suit) that Robertson, the nominal plaintiff*, in whose name the suit is brought, is no longer the real party in interest.

Ferguson having the beneficial interest in the notes, has the right to use the name of Robertson to compel a recovery.

Judgment affirmed.

*

18 Howard, 480.

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

Mr. Justice DAVIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

The decision of this court in Bacon et al. v. Robertson, * disposes of this case.

The Commercial Bank of Natchez, Mississippi, by judicial forfeiture, was deprived of its. charter, and Robertson appointed a trustee to wind up its affairs. In discharge of hia trust, having paid all the debts of the insolvent corporation, a large surplus remained. The object of the suit in Bacon v. Robertson, was to establish the title of the stockholders to this surplus. Robertson refused to distribute the effects in his hands, claiming that, since the dissolution of the corporation, the stockholders had no rights which this court could recognize. But the court, in an elaborate opinion, decide that the trustee cannot deny the title of the stockholders to a distribution, and that, by the laws of Mississippi and the general principles of equity jurisprudence, the surplus of the *280 assets which may remain after the payment of debts and expenses, belong to the stockholders of the bank.

After this decision, Ferguson was appointed receiver, and Robertson ordered to deliver to him the effects of the bank, which he held as trustee. In pursuance of this order, the two notes on which the suit is brought were delivered to Ferguson, and the name of Robertson, in whom the legal title rests, is used to enforce their collection.

Lum, a delinquent debtor of the bank, cannot plead the extinguishment of his debt by the judgment of forfeiture, for the court (in the case cited) say, the debt exists and can be recovered, and that it is the duty of the trustee to reduce the property of the bank to money, and distribute it among the stockholders. Nor can Lum be permitted to show (not having a meritorious defence to the suit) that Robertson, the nominal plaintiff*, in whose name the suit is brought, is no longer the real party in interest.

Ferguson having the beneficial interest in the notes, has the right to use the name of Robertson to compel a recovery.

Judgment affirmed.

*

18 Howard, 480.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 U.S. 277, 18 L. Ed. 743, 6 Wall. 277, 1867 U.S. LEXIS 970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lum-v-robertson-scotus-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack