# Gurney v. Massena

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 21, 1944 · 142 F.2d 404

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6888624

## Case

- **Full name:** In re WESTERN TOOL & MFG. CO. GURNEY v. MASSENA
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 21, 1944
- **Citations:** 142 F.2d 404; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3339
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Iiicks
- **Judges:** Allen, Hamilton, Hicks, Iiicks
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6888624

## Opinion text

IIICKS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I find myself out of harmony with the decision. It is a well-settled principle of equity jurisprudence that a stockholder has a right in a plenary suit to seek redress for wrongs done to a corporation where the proper officers thereof refuse to do so, but no such case is presented. Here, a dissatisfied stockholder endeavors, in the name of the corporation, to reorganize it under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act. This I think he cannot do. I find nothing in Chapter X that gives jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court for such purpose. From my viewpoint the proceedings under Chapter X are not intended therefor. They are intended for corporation reorganization purposes only; and according to Article I, Sec. 101, the provisions of the Chapter apply exclusively to proceedings thereunder. Of course a corporation has the right to file a petition for reorganization pui'poses but I think that the term “corporation” used in Chapter X refers to a coi-poration in the ordinary sense. It means a corporation as defined in the Act itself. I think that to allow Gurney to use the name of the corporation for reorganization purposes would imply jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court nowhere granted. It would require that court, before it reached the reorganization feature, to settle and determine all the complaints which Gurney, purporting to represent a class, makes against the directors, etc. It is rather clear to me that in his affidavit, attached to the petition, he sets forth enough, which, if properly averred in a bill in equity, would constitute good pleading, but for some reason not altogether apparent, he did not pursue that remedy.
From my viewpoint the appeal should be dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6888624. Public record. Not legal advice.