The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1916-07-21
HOLMES GETS JUDGMENT

Following is decision of the New
York Court Of Appeals in the case Of
Holmes ct al VS.. Crane ct al, by JUS
tice Erlanger:
Holmes ct al. VS.. Crane ct al.-The
plaintiffs, stockholders Ct the defend
ant st. Joseph Lead Company, have
brought this action for an accounting
and to recover for alleged negligence
and unlawful acts of certain individ-
uals, who were directors, whereby the
assets of the corporation were wasted.
Among the defendants are executors
of Dwight A. Jones, deceased, one of
the individuals whose acts are made
the basis of the action, and a demurrer
has been interposed in their behalf
upon the ground that the court has
not jurisdiction Of these defendants
or of the subject of the cction; that
there is a defect Of parties in the
omission to join all the directors of
the defendant corporation and other
individuals and the directors of the de-
PENDANT corporation and other indi-
viduals and the directors of other COR
porations referred TO in the complaint
as participating in the alleged negli-
gent or unlawful acts; that two of the
directors, the defendants Crane and
Camp, are improperly joined with the
demurrants; that Che complaint is in
sufficient in substance, and chat there
is an improper uniting of GAUGES OF
action. The facts set forth in the
complaint appear to be quite suffi-
cient for case against the decedent,
Dwight A. Jones, under section Ola Of
the General Corporation Law. While
his actual receipt Of moneys belonging
to the corporation is not alleged, an
accounting" is none the lees rem
edy available to the plaintiffs for the
loss occasioncd to the corporation by
the negligent or unlawful acts. The
form of action is directly authorized
for this purpose by the statute, and
the plaintiffs were under no obliga-
ton to join all the parties who might
be similarly charged with the acts in
question. The series of transactions
alleged is properly to be viewed as
presenting single cause of action
within the statute, not as a case for
separate wrongful acts, and the ident-
ity of participation by all the direc-
tors who are joined is set forth in
such manner as to indicate single
scheme, for the results of which they
may be sued together, in this com
| prchcnsive form of action, although
| their actual periods Of service as di.
rectors may not have been coternin'
Gus. This cause of action survived as
against the personal representatives
of the deceased director (Decede1t Es
tates Law, sec. 1907, and there can b.
no question that the court has juris
diction of the subject of an action
/ brought under section Ola of thu
General Corporation Law IN the RICH
Of domestic corporation, duly joined
The court has jurisdiction of these de
PENDANTS, although they are foreign
executors &c. G. p, sec, 1864; Pro
vost VS.. Int. Giant. &C., Co., 152 App
Div, SO. 20S N. Y, 635), it appearing
from the allegations chat the provi
sions of the Code, and referred to il
section 1936-a, were rce1acted in tn
. form of section As of the Decedeat Els
, tates Law, and were saved from tn
repeal of section 2704 by section 0
of the General Construction Law. II
as the demurrants contend, loss t
the corporation is not demonstrate
/ with exactness, it is none the less ap
: parent that the funds of the corpora
] ton were employed contrary to Lax
4 (Stock Corporation Law, sec, 52), an
] under circumstances which called up
: on the directors for an explanation
ii (Sage VS.. Culver, lat N. T., 24l1, but