33:T54d,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris, 341 F.2d 577","datePublished":"1965-02-15","legislationDate":"1965-02-15","citation":"James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris, 341 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1965)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","description":"Read the full text of James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris (James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris, 341 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1965)). This legal opinion, filed in 1965-02-15, from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/james-frank-palmer-v-morris-266900"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/james-frank-palmer-v-morris-266900","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, James Frank Palmer v. Morris B. Morris, 341 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1965)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}35:T4d0, PER CURIAM:

While the stockholders’ derivative suit was pending, sufficient other stockholders joined with the original plaintiff, Palmer, to cause the corporation “Altex” to desire to join in the litigation against other defendants. Thereafter the trial court entered an order realigning Altex as a plaintiff and dismissing Palmer as a plaintiff.

There was no justification for eliminating Palmer, the stockholder, who had commenced the action, merely because the corporation belatedly sought to join in his action. Cf. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Jenkins, 7 F.R.D. 197, S.D.N.Y.1947.

There is no merit in appellees’ motion that since Altex has now filed for bankruptcy, the ease should be stayed until the trustee determines whether he wishes to continue the suit in Altex’s behalf. Meyer v. Fleming, 327 U.S. 161, 66 S.Ct. 382, 90 L.Ed. 595.

The order of dismissal was error. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.