HAAS V. JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK
442 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1971)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over application of Rule 19. his was an appeal
from the decision, which dismissed Haas' (P) action as a result of its finding that an
indispensable party destroyed complete diversity in the case.
FACTS: Haas (P) sued Bank (D) for a mandatory injunction to issue P 169.5 shares of
common stock. P alleged an agreement with Glueck under which they had jointly purchased 250
shares of D's stock and then another 34 shares and that the certificates were issued under
Glueck's name but the bank was aware of his one half ownership. In 1969, P asked Glueck to
issue his share in P's name and that Glueck went to D to do so but D refused in that Glueck
was under a promissory obligation that pledged the stock. D then transferred that obligation
to another bank. After a pretrial conference the court ordered P to amend his complaint and
join Glueck as a party. The complaint was then dismissed for lack of diversity as Glueck was
an Ohio citizen as was P. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment