Bailey v. Pittsb. Coal R.
Bailey v. Pittsb. Coal R.
Opinion of the Court
This appeal is entitled as though it had been taken by the Pittsburgh Coal Railroad Company. Such is not the fact, however. The appeal was entered by William Vankirk, R. B. Brown, John F. Dravo, and W. H. Aldred, four of the defendants below.
Lane’s App., 105 Pa. 49, and Bell’s App., 115 Pa. 88, are authority that such a bill can be maintained. The record is voluminous, and consists principally of questions of fact. We must assume that the learned master has decided these correctly, inasmuch as he is sustained by the court below, and no clear error has been pointed out. The matters referred to in the second and third assignments are purely technical, and do not affect the merits. We find nothing in the record to justify us in reversing the decree.
Decree affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- W. F. BAILEY v. PITTSB. COAL R. CO.
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Creditors of a corporation may maintain a bill in equity against the corporation and the subscribers to its stock, to ascertain the plaintiffs’ claims, and for a receiver to collect unpaid stock subscriptions for the payment thereof: Lane’s App., 105 Pa. 49 ; Bell’s App., 115 Pa. 88. 2. Objections, filed after the master’s report, that no issue was made up as to the defendant company, and that, after the reference to the master, parties both plaintiff and defendant were added but the pleadings continued unchanged, are technical merely, and are not ground for reversal.