Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

156 Mich. 518

Fuller v. McCormick

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1909

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1909-05-25

Bill by Horace J. Fuller against Hiram W. McCormick, Frank D. McCormick, and the Olympic for the appointment of a receiver for defendant… Held: which was on May 1, 1907. Defendants have paid in but $750 each, in cash, and have together contributed for the equipment of a small theater personal property worth no more than $500. The corporation has rented for five years from September 1, 1907, property at an annual rental of $2,000, agreeing also to reconstruct the premises.

Relies on Hawes v. Oakland · Heap v. Heap Manufacturing Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1909-05-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1943

4 state decisions

2019091910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ostrander, J.

¶1(after stating the facts). We are referred by counsel for complainant to no authority which supports his right to maintain this bill. Clearly Hawes v. Contra Costa Waterworks Co., 104 U. S. 450, is not such an authority. Nor is the jurisdiction invoked conferred by 3 Comp. Laws, §§ 9757, 9759; nor by 3 Comp. Laws, § 8545. The defendant stockholders are charged with no mismanagement of corporate funds. They have not, as steckholders or as directors, acquired money or property or lost or wasted assets of the corporation. If the court were to exercise the visitatorial powers conferred by 3 Comp. Laws, § 9757, it would not reach the matter complained about, which is that the defendant stockholders have not paid for their stock. The insolvency of the company is not ground for interference by a stockholder to wind up its affairs. Heap v. Manufacturing Co., 97 Mich. 147.

¶2The decree overruling the demurrer is reversed, with costs of both courts, and a decree will be entered here sustaining the demurrer. The record will be remanded, and complainant will have 30 days after remittitur to amend his bill if he desires so to do.

Grant, Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. .
/156/mich/518 · .json · Public domain