MARBLE v. HASBERG (1937)

Supreme Court of California.

MARBLE et al. v. HASBERG.
SAME v. ANGER et al.

L. A. 15988.

Decided: February 26, 1937

Overton, Lyman & Plumb, Irving H. Prince, Chalmers L. McGaughey, and Roscoe R. Hess, all of Los Angeles, for appellants. Loeb, Walker & Loeb and Herman F. Selvin, all of Los Angeles, for respondents Hasberg, Anger, Grauman, Rapf, Thalberg, Mayer, J. P. Loeb, E. J. Loeb, Lichty, Evans, as administrator, etc., and Keaton. Guy Richards Crump, of Los Angeles, Mark S. Feiler, of Beverly Hills, and Roy W. Colegate, of Los Angeles, for respondent Schenck. Frank P. Doherty and William R. Gallagher, both of Los Angeles, for respondent Freud.

The questions involved in the appeal in these consolidated cases are the same as those raised in Dietzel v. Anger (Cal.Sup.) 65 P.(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.

Te judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law