Texasteel Mfg. Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

Fifth Circuit

Texasteel Mfg. Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

158 F.2d 90, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3000

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1946

DocketNos. 11499, 11603

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 158 F.2d 90 (Texasteel Mfg. Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.) 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

Texasteel Mfg. Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 158 F.2d 90, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3000 (5th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A declaratory judgment was rendered below on May 8, 1945, from which an appeal was taken. Coercive relief in the form of a judgment for the payment of money based upon the declaratory decree was also entered by the Court, in the same case, on January 12, 1946, from which an appeal was likewise taken. The two appeals, by stipulation, having been argued together, we shall dispose of them together.

We conclude: (1) that the Court below had jurisdiction; (2) that the allegations of the complaint made an appropriate case for a declaratory judgment; (3) that the defendants wholly failed to prove either fraud, duress, or mismanagement by appellee; (4) that the defendants wholly failed to make out a case for any recovery against the appellee; (5) that the individual defendants were primarily liable on the obligation for which recovery was allowed; (6) that the corporate reorganization proceedings in bankruptcy pending in the same court did not prevent the Court below from-declaring the rights of the parties and from rendering judgment against the individual defendants; (7) that the granting of a money judgment in the case after the rendition of a declaratory decree was not error; (8) that the judgments of the Court below in both appeals should be, and the same are hereby, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

A declaratory judgment was rendered below on May 8, 1945, from which an appeal was taken. Coercive relief in the form of a judgment for the payment of money based upon the declaratory decree was also entered by the Court, in the same case, on January 12, 1946, from which an appeal was likewise taken. The two appeals, by stipulation, having been argued together, we shall dispose of them together.

We conclude: (1) that the Court below had jurisdiction; (2) that the allegations of the complaint made an appropriate case for a declaratory judgment; (3) that the defendants wholly failed to prove either fraud, duress, or mismanagement by appellee; (4) that the defendants wholly failed to make out a case for any recovery against the appellee; (5) that the individual defendants were primarily liable on the obligation for which recovery was allowed; (6) that the corporate reorganization proceedings in bankruptcy pending in the same court did not prevent the Court below from-declaring the rights of the parties and from rendering judgment against the individual defendants; (7) that the granting of a money judgment in the case after the rendition of a declaratory decree was not error; (8) that the judgments of the Court below in both appeals should be, and the same are hereby, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F.2d 90, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texasteel-mfg-co-v-seaboard-surety-co-ca5-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack