CHESBROUGH
v.
NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR OF SCHREIBER, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Chesbrough, a director of a Michigan bank, was sued by three defendants for damages arising from his conduct as director. The parties stipulated that these cases would be governed entirely by the outcome of a related case (Woodworth v. Chesbrough) that had already been decided against Chesbrough in the Supreme Court, and the District Court properly entered judgments against him consistent with that stipulation. The Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Chesbrough's challenge to the District Court's jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy, finding the tort action involved sufficient damages and contained no impediment to recovery.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion under direction of the court, by
Mr. Justice McReynolds.
Each of the three defendants in error instituted a suit against plaintiff in error for damages suffered by reason of his action as a director of the Old Second National Bank, Bay City, Michigan. These were consolidated in the District Court, and thereafter all parties stipulated that, as the facts were approximately the same as in Woodworth v. Chesbrough et al. (No. 137), the “causes shall in all respects and as to all parties therein, be governed and concluded by the final result in the said case ” and “that if and when final judgment is entered upon the verdict heretofore rendered in said case Number 137, or on any verdict that may hereafter be rendered therein and when proceedings (if any) for the review of said judgment have been concluded or abandoned so that execution may be issued thereon, then judgment shall be forthwith entered and execution issued in the above entitled causes,” for specified amounts.
A judgment against Chesbrough in No. 137 having been affirmed here (244 U. S. 72), the District Court, purporting to enforce the stipulation, entered judgments for defendants in error; and this action was properly approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 251 Fed. Rep. 881. See 195 Fed. Rep. 875; 221 Fed. Rep. 912.
Plain provisions of the stipulation were rightly applied. The objection, based upon alleged insufficiency of the amount involved, which plaintiff in error urges to the District Court’s jurisdiction of the cause first instituted by Mrs. Smalley in the state court and thereafter removed upon his petition, is without merit. The action is in tort; alleged damages exceed the prescribed amount; the declaration discloses nothing rendering such a recovery impossible; no bad faith appears. At this stage of the cause it would require very clear error to justify a negation of the trial court’s jurisdiction. Smithers v. Smith, 204 U. S. 632, 642, 643.
The judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (64 total)
-
State v. Dickinson, 286 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1973)…lature reenacts a statute, it is presumed to know and adopt the construction placed thereon by the State tax administrators. Barr v. Delta and Pine Lane Company, 199 So. 2d 269, 271 (Miss.1967); National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 147, 40 S.Ct. 237, 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920). The mere change of language does not necessarily indicate an intent to change the law for the intent may be to clarify what was doubtful and to safeguard against misapprehension as to existing law. Helvering v. New York Trust C…
-
Peninsular Supply Co. v. C.B. DAY Realty OF Fla., Inc., 423 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…cts a statute, it is presumed to know and adopt the construction placed thereon by courts or administrators, except to the extent to which the new enactment differs from prior constructions. See National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 147, 40 S.Ct. 237, 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920); State ex rel. Szabo Food Services, Inc. of North Carolina v. Dickinson, 286 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1974). The 1977 Revision made clear that a claimant not in privity with the owner who did not perfect lien rights by giving proper no…
-
Davies v. Bossert, 449 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ed that it approved the interpretation given the earlier statute by the Florida Supreme Court. See Peninsular Supply Co. v. C.B. Day Realty of Florida, Inc., 423 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), citing National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 40 S.Ct. 237, 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920) and State ex rel. Szabo Food Services, Inc. of North Carolina v. Dickinson, 286 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1973). [*421] All of the Florida state court cases which interpret the notice requirement of Section 770.01 involve newspapers, peri…
Previewing 3 of 64 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smithers v. Smith, 204 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1907)
- Chesbrough v. Woodworth, 244 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1917)