Case Name: JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM HASBERG, Respondent; JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. LOU ANGER et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1937-02-26
Citations: 8 Cal. 2d 770
Docket Number: L. A. No. 15988
Parties: JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM HASBERG, Respondent. JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. LOU ANGER et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 770–770

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 15988.
In Bank.
February 26, 1937.]
JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM HASBERG, Respondent. JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. LOU ANGER et al., Respondents.
Overton, Lyman & Plumb, Irving H. Prince, Chalmers L. McGaughey and Roscoe R. Hess for Appellants.
Loeb, Walker & Loeb, Herman F. Selvin, Guy Richards Crump, Mark S. Feiler, Roy W. Colegate, Frank P. Doherty and William R. Gallagher for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
The questions invo'ved in the appeal in these consolidated cases are the same as those raised in Dietzel v. Anger, L. A. No. 15987 (ante, p. 373 [65 Pac. (2d) 803]), this day decided. The trial court in the instant case reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs, representing the holders of bonds of a corporation in default, had no right to sue defendants, stockholders of the issuing corporation, where rights of action under or because of the bonds were vested in a trustee which had not been asked to sue. For the reasons stated in Dietzel v. Anger, supra, the lower court's decision was correct.
The judgment is affirmed.
Rehearing denied.