McKellar v. Stanton
McKellar v. Stanton
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This is an appeal from an order of Judge Bowman refusing to declare the action to be one of law and to place it on Calendar 1 for trial by jury. But he retained the cause on Calendar 2, where it had been put by plaintiff’s counsel, and referred the cause to a special referee to hear and determine the same and report the same to the Court.
Under the allegations of the complaint there is ample allegation to require the defendants to account for actings and doings, under the cases.of Kerr v. Camden Steamboat Co., Cheves’ Eq. 189; Buist v. Melchers, 44 S. C. 63, 21 S. E. 449.
The pleadings show a cause in equity, and not one of law where the defendants were entitled, as a matter of right, to a jury trial, and we see no error on the part of his Honor. Exceptions overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
Footnote. — As to equitable jurisdiction of suits by corporations or receivers against directors or officers for negligence or wrongful acts, see notes in 7 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1121, and 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 739. ,
Reference
- Full Case Name
- McKELLAR v. STANTON ET AL.
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Corporations — Fiduciary Relation — Sole Stockholders and Officers.- — -Where defendants were the only stockholders and officers of a corporation, they occupied a fiduciary relation toward such corporation in a suit by the trustee of the corporation in behalf of its . creditors. 2. Action — Legal or E&uitable. — 'Where defendants, the sole stockholders and officers of a corporation, were charged with having purchased goods on the credit of the corporation and misappropriated corporate assets so as to cheat and defraud creditors, and an accounting was prayed by its trustee, the action is one of. equitable jurisdiction.