Williams v. Neville

53 So. 594, 98 Miss. 268
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 53 So. 594 (Williams v. Neville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Neville, 53 So. 594, 98 Miss. 268 (Mich. 1910).

Opinion

Anderson, J.,

after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellants fail to state a case in their bill. Stockholders of an insolvent corporation, in order to maintain a bill against the directors for their ultra vires and fraudulent acts, must allege and prove a state of facts which will entitle them to a decree. They must sho'w an interest in the result. In 3 Cook on Corporations (5th Ed.), p. 1883, the principle involved here is stated in this language; “Another principle of law in [272]*272this connection, is that, where the corporation is insolvent, a stockholder cannot maintain a suit to hold the directors liable for fraud, unless he alleges that the relief asked for will be of some benefit to him; in other words, that there will be a surplus for the stockholders after the creditors are paid.” The assets of a corporation go first to the creditors, and the remainder, if any, to the stockholders. The bill fails to state facts which, if proven, would entitle appellants to a decree — facts which show there would be anything left after paying creditors. Affirmed.

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

Related

Campbell v. Anniston Office Bldg. Co.
73 F.2d 789 (Fifth Circuit, 1934)
Murphy v. Candor
263 Ill. App. 226 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
Spiro v. Shapleigh Hardware Co.
118 So. 429 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 So. 594, 98 Miss. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-neville-miss-1910.