From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ghingher v. Kausler

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 1, 1935
182 A. 566 (Md. 1935)

Opinion

[No. 62, October Term, 1935.]

October Term, 1935

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County, In Equity (SLOAN C.J., and WAGAMAN, J.).

Petition by John J. Ghingher, Receiver of the Hagerstown Bank Trust Company, asking that an assessment be made against each of the stockholders of said company in an amount equal to the par value of the stock held by him, to which John S. Kausler and various other stockholders filed answers. From a decree dismissing the petition, the petitioner appeals. Reversed.

The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

Robert H. McCauley and J. Lloyd Harshman, for the appellant.

John Wagaman and Charles F. Wagaman, with whom were Daniel W. Doub, Martin V.B. Bostetter, W.P. Wachter, C. Walter Baker, and Levin Stonebraker, on the brief, for the appellees.

Joseph C. France, Alexander Armstrong, and J. Purdon Wright, counsel for John D. Hospelhorn, Receiver of the Baltimore Trust Company, filed a brief as amici curiae.


In this case, on facts similar to those stated in the opinion filed in the case of Ghingher, Receiver, v. Bachtell ante, p. 678, 182 A. 558, the same questions of law have been presented, and the conclusions are necessarily the same.

For the reasons stated in that opinion, therefore, the decree below will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with that opinion.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded, with costs to the appellant.


Summaries of

Ghingher v. Kausler

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 1, 1935
182 A. 566 (Md. 1935)
Case details for

Ghingher v. Kausler

Case Details

Full title:JOHN J. GHINGHER, RECEIVER, v . JOHN S. KAUSLER ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Oct 1, 1935

Citations

182 A. 566 (Md. 1935)
182 A. 566

Citing Cases

Stockholders v. Sterling

Even so, they appeared within the time limit in opposition to the assessment, asserting that the statute was…

Hospelhorn v. Poe

V. As a necessary consequence of chapter 46 of the Acts of 1933, the right of the shareholder to effect a…