DAVENPORT
v.
DOWS
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.
A stockholder brought suit to challenge a tax assessment against his corporation without making the corporation itself a party to the litigation. The Supreme Court held that a corporation must be joined as a party defendant in derivative suits brought by shareholders on behalf of the corporation, because the decree affects the corporation's rights and interests, and equity courts will not hear such cases otherwise. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for proper proceedings with the corporation as a party.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.
It is unnecessary to notice the last two reasons assigned, why the demurrer should not have been overruled, as the first is well taken. Indeed, it would be improper to pass on the merits of the controversy until the proper parties to be affected by the decision are before the court.
That a stockholder may'bring a suit when-a corporation refuses is settled in Dodge v. Woolsey,* but such a suit can only be maintained on the ground that the rights of the corporation are involved. These rights the individual shareholder is allowed to assert in behalf of himself and. associates, because the directors of the corporation decline to take the proper steps to assert them. Manifestly the proceedings for this purpose should be so conducted that any decree which shall be made on the merits shall conclude the corporation. This can only be done by making the corporation a party defendant. The relief asked is on behalf of the corporation, not the individual shareholder, and if it be granted the complainant derives only an incidental benefit from it. It would be wrong, in case the' shareholder were unsuccessful, to allow the corporation to renew the litigation'in another suit, involving precisely the same subject-matter. To avoid such a result, a court of equity will not take cognizance of a bill brought to settle a-question in which the corporation is the esseutial party in interest, unless it is made a party to the litigation.† In this case the' tax sought to' be avoided was assessed against the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad Company, and the decree rendered discharges the company from the payment of this tax. The corporation, therefore, should have been made a party to the suit, and as .it was not, the demurrer should have been sustained.
Decree reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings,
In conformity with this opinion.
*
18 Howard, 340.
†
Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige, 222, 233; Cunningham v. Pell, 5 Id. 607; Hersey v. Veazie, 24 Maine, 1; Charleston Insurance and Trust Co. v. Sebring, 5 Richardson, Equity, 342; Western Railroad Co. v. Nolan, 48 New York, 573; Bagshaw v. Eastern Union Railroad Co., 7 Hare, 114-131.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Brown v. The Fla. S. Ry. Co., 19 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1882)
-
Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295 (U.S. 1939)…ger, and his acts subject to more severe scrutiny, and their validity determined by more rigid principles of morality, and freedom from motives of ;selfishness.” Converse v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 209 Mass. 539; 95 N. E. 929. Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626. It is also clear that bredch of that fiduciary duty may also give rise to direct actions by stockholders in their own right. Strong v. Repide, 213 U. S. 419. Cf. Green v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 24 F. 2d 378. § 70(a) (6); Manning v. Campbell,…
-
Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1970)…ry, is obviously the most difficult to apply. See James, Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Actions, 72 Yale L. J. 655 (1963). See Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U. S. 518 (1947); Meyer v. Fleming, 327 U. S. 161, 167 (1946); Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626 (1874). The Judicial Code of 1911, § 267, 36 Stat. 1163, re-enacting the Act of Sept. 24, 1789, § 16, 1 Stat. 82, provided: “Suits in equity shall not be sustained in any court of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence