Marble v. Hasberg

California Supreme Court Feb 26, 1937 No. L. A. No. 15988Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that bondholders lack standing to sue stockholders of an issuing corporation when the right of action is vested in a trustee that has not been requested to initiate litigation.

Issues

Whether bondholders may sue stockholders of an issuing corporation when the right of action is vested in a trustee that has not been asked to sue.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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”

THE COURT. The questions invo'ved 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 Pac. (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.

Rehearing denied.

Marble v. Hasberg

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief