Court Opinion

ID: 9826778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:36:57.454156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:14.939143
License: Public Domain

MEMOBANDÜM OPINION ON PETITION TO BEHEAB.
Since the filing of the opinion in this cause appellants have filed a petition to rehear, on the ground that the court had overlooked the first assignment of error, to the effect that the Chancellor had overruled their demurrer to the petition for writ of error coram nobis because it did not make Mrs. Padfield, the transferee of six shares of the stock, a party to the petition, and it is insisted that she was a proper and necessary party. It will be observed that this court expressly overruled all the assignments of error, and we, therefore, held in the original opinion that this assignment was not good.
*704Since the filing of this petition, we have again examined the rc-ord and considered this assignment of error. But we are constrained to adhere to our former ruling. After a decree has been entered and a petition for writ of error coram nobis is filed, it is in the nature of a new suit to this extent. Wills v. Wills, 104 Tenn., 382, 387, 58 S. W., 301, and authorities there cited. In a suit of this kind, where there are numerous parties to the original suit, with different rights- and liabilities, as set out in the original opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Rose v. Morrow, 153 Tenn., 97, it is not necessary to make all of them parties to a petition for writ of error coram nobis. It is only necessary to make the parties who have rights against Mrs. Holland and who may be prejudiced by the vacating of the original decree parties, to this petition for writ of erro-coram nobis. Their rights are not prejudiced by not making Mrs. Padfield a partv defendant. The adjudication of Mrs. Holland’s bilitv for $1200 or $600 can in no way affect the liability of Mrs. Padfield. In a suit to enforce the statutory liability of stockholders, the depositors are entitled to a decree against each stockholder for the amount of each deposit to the, extent of the stockholder’s liability a.s set out in chanter 54 of the Acts of 1909. But, if a depositor collects his judgment against one of the. stockholders, then, it is satisfaction as to the others. Oaruthers’ History of a Lawsuit (5 Ed.), 43: Sully v. Campbell, 99 Tenn., 434, 441 42 S. W., 15.
In this ease a pro confesso was taken against Mrs. Padfield. then the original decree for $1259.40 was rendered against Mrs. Holland. Tn that decree it was expressly stated that “this cause is retained in court for such other orders or decrees as may he necessary and proper.” At this stage of the case Mrs. Holland filed her petition for a writ of error coram nohis, with the result that it was held by the Chancellor that, the original decree for $1259.40 should be vacated and that a decree should be entered against Mrs. Holland for only $600 with interest, as set out in the original opinion. The adjudication of Mrs. Holland’s liability in the lower court and on appeal in no wav affects the depositors’ rights against, or the liability of Mrs. Padfield, and the depositors have, so far .as the record shows, a right to proceed against Mrs. Padfield in the chancery court irrespective of the appeal.
Tt results that the petition for a rehearing must be denied,
Faw, P. J., and DeWit.t, J., concur.