Marble v. Hasberg

JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM HASBERG, Respondent.

JOHN M. MARBLE et al., Appellants, v. LOU ANGER et al., Respondents.

COUNSEL

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 OF THE COURT

Memorandum

THE COURT.

[1] The questions involved 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 PaCal.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.