Skip to main content


United States Supreme Court


No. 206

Argued: January 30, 1920Decided: January 30, 1920

March 1, 1920

Mr. Thomas A. E. Weadock, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edward S. Clark, of Bay City, Mich., for defendants in error.

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, Mich. 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 [252 U.S. 83, 84]   '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 No. 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 , 37 Sup. Ct. 579), 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. 881, 164 C. C. A. 97). See 195 Fed. 875, 116 C. C. A. 465; 221 Fed. 912, 137 C. C. A. 482.

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 S., 27 Sup. Ct. 297.

The judgment of the court below is


Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

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

Citation: 252 U.S. 83

Docket No: No. 206

Argued: January 30, 1920

Decided: January 30, 1920

Court: United States Supreme Court

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard