Waseca County Bank v. McKenna

21 N.W. 556, 32 Minn. 468, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 204
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 29, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 21 N.W. 556 (Waseca County Bank v. McKenna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Waseca County Bank v. McKenna, 21 N.W. 556, 32 Minn. 468, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 204 (Mich. 1884).

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The plaintiff is not in position to maintain this action. Not having in its hands any dividends due stockholders, (we [469]*469do not wish to express an opinion whether that would make any difference,) the only thing which the defendant as treasurer can do is to levy upon and sell the shares of stock of individual stockholders for the tax upon such shares. This is all that he threatens to do, and is what the action seeks to enjoin him from doing. Such sale would have the effect only to transfer, to whomsoever should purchase at the sale, the title to the stock sold. This would not affect the bank in any other way, nor be any more a wrong against it, than would a transfer by the stockholders themselves. The wrong, if any, in making the levy and sale would be a wrong against the individual stockholders, and not against the bank. It has, therefore, no legal interest in the matter. We are referred to several decisions upholding suits by banks to restrain such levies and sales. But such decisions could not be made under a statute which requires, as ours does, that “every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”

The suggestion that the action will prevent a multiplicity of suits {that is, of' the individual stockholders) does not help the plaintiff; for one having no interest in the controversy cannot maintain an action on the ground that otherwise there may be a multiplicity of suits by those who are interested.

The court below did not decide the case on this point, but it presents an insuperable objection to any other judgment than one in favor of defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Volunteers of America v. City of Minneapolis
154 N.W.2d 810 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1967)
Singer v. Allied Factors, Inc.
13 N.W.2d 378 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
Bancroft v. Cook
162 N.E. 691 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Fairley v. City of Duluth
185 N.W. 390 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1921)
Northwestern Loan & Banking Co. v. Muggli
64 N.W. 1122 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 N.W. 556, 32 Minn. 468, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waseca-county-bank-v-mckenna-minn-1884.