Minnesota Supreme Court, 1884

Waseca County Bank v. McKenna

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 29, 1884 · Gilfillan

32 Minn. 468; 21 N.W. 556; 1884 Minn. LEXIS 204 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

P. McGovern, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1967, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Volunteers of America v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1967)
Singer v. Allied Factors, Inc. (Minn. 1944)
Fairley v. City of Duluth (Minn. 1921)
Northwestern Loan & Banking Co. v. Muggli (S.D. 1895)
Minnesota Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Allina Health System Corp. (8th Cir. 2002)
Bancroft v. Cook (Mass. 1928)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gilfillan, C. J.

The plaintiff is not in position to maintain this action. Not having in its hands any dividends due stockholders, (we *469do not wish to express an opinion whether that would make any difference,) the only thing which the defendant as treasurer can do is to levy upon and sell the shares of stock of individual stockholders for the tax upon such shares. This is all that he threatens to do, and is what the action seeks to enjoin him from doing. Such sale would have the effect only to transfer, to whomsoever should purchase at the sale, the title to the stock sold. This would not affect the bank in any other way, nor be any more a wrong against it, than would a transfer by the stockholders themselves. The wrong, if any, in making the levy and sale would be a wrong against the individual stockholders, and not against the bank. It has, therefore, no legal interest in the matter. We are referred to several decisions upholding suits by banks to restrain such levies and sales. But such decisions could not be made under a statute which requires, as ours does, that “every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”

The suggestion that the action will prevent a multiplicity of suits {that is, of' the individual stockholders) does not help the plaintiff; for one having no interest in the controversy cannot maintain an action on the ground that otherwise there may be a multiplicity of suits by those who are interested.

The court below did not decide the case on this point, but it presents an insuperable objection to any other judgment than one in favor of defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.