Brown v. McDonald
Citations
- 130 F. 964
- 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4861
Syllabus
<p>1. Bill of Discovert — Jurisdiction—Adequate Remedy at Law.</p> <p>A federal court of equity will not entertain a bill of discovery, the sole purpose of which is to ascertain the names of alleged owners of stock of a corporation against whom complainant desires to bring actions for the collection of an assessment, where the bill shows that defendants, one of «whom is responsible, are also liable for such assessment, since complainant not only has an adequate remedy at law for the collection of the assessment, but, under Rev. St. §§ 858, 724 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 659, 583], may call defendants as witnesses in such action and require them to produce books and papers.</p>
Judges: Holland
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Post & Co. v. Toledo, Cincinnati, & St. Louis RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1887-05-05· cited 52×
- Ex Parte BoydSupreme Court· 1882-05-18· cited 50×
- Safford v. Ensign Mfg. Co.Fourth Circuit· 1903-02-03· cited 14×
- Preston v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri· 1886-03-26· cited 11×
- United States v. McLaughlinU.S. Circuit Court· 1885-08-18· cited 8×
- Field v. Hastings & Bradley Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa· 1895-01-03· cited 6×
- Paton v. MajorsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana· 1891-05-07· cited 5×
- Drexel v. BerneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1882-11-17· cited 2×
- American Alkali Co. v. BeanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania· 1903-12-05· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.