Marble v. Hasberg, 8 Cal.2d 770
[L. A. No. 15988. In Bank. February 26, 1937.]
JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM HASBERG, Respondent.
JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. LOU ANGER et al., Respondents.
COUNSEL
Overton, Lyman & Plumb, Irving H. Prince, Chalmers L. McGaughey and Roscoe R. Hess for Appellants.
Loeb, Walker & Loeb, Herman F. Selvin, Guy Richards Crump, Mark S. Feiler, Roy W. Colegate, Frank P. Doherty and William R. Gallagher for Respondents.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum
THE COURT.
[1] The questions involved in the appeal in these consolidated cases are the same as those raised in Dietzel v. Anger, L. A. No. 15987 (ante, p. 373 [65 PaCal.2d 803]), this day decided. The trial court in the instant case reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs, representing the holders of bonds of a corporation in default, had no right to sue defendants, stockholders of the issuing corporation, where rights of action under or because of the bonds were vested in a trustee which had not been asked to sue. For the reasons stated in Dietzel v. Anger, supra, the lower court's decision was correct.
The judgment is affirmed.
[End of Volume 8 Cal.2d]
Opinion Information
Parties
| 1 | JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM HASBERG (Respondent)
|
| 2 | WILLIAM HASBERG (Respondent)
|
| Disposition |
| Feb 26 1937 | Opinion: Affirmed |
