After a demurrer by one of the defendants to a bill in equity in the Superior Court had been overruled, a motion by that defendant for a report thereof had been denied and an amendment of the bill not affecting the case stated therein against that defendant had been allowed, it was within the power of another judge of that court to consider and overrule a demurrer by that defendant to the amended bill raising the same questions of law as the first demurrer and thereupon to report those questions to this court.
Allegations in a bill in equity by a holder of a certificate of beneficial interest in a trust, setting forth a series of instances wherein two defendants having a fiduciary relation to the trust profited at its expense with the assistance of other defendants, were not too vague and indefinite. Upon a report of the overruling of a demurrer to a bill in equity, this court had the discretionary power to postpone consideration of the question of the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill in certain respects until the facts should have been established, and took that course without prejudice to the subsequent presentation of that question.
A bill in equity seeking relief against alleged improper profit making by two of the defendants, in breach of a fiduciary duty owed by them,. A holder of preferred shares of beneficial interest in a trust, entitled to receive cumulative dividends and a specified sum per share in liquidation in priority to payments to the holders of other classes of shares, could maintain a suit in equity for relief against improper profit making by the defendants at the expense of the trust even if the remaining assets thereof were then sufficient to afford the plaintiff his rights as a preferred shareholder if liquidation should then occur and even if he became a shareholder after the alleged wrongdoing took place.
On February 27, , the plaintiff's first motion to amend his bill by substituting a new draft was allowed. The defendants Hopson and Mange were not residents of the Commonwealth, were not served with process, and did not appear. The other defendants demurred. On March 30, , an interlocutory decree was entered by a judge of the Superior Court, overruling the demurrer. On April 1, , the demurring defendants appealed.
On April 6, , the judge denied the motion of the demurring defendants that the case be reported under G. On July 19, , an amendment to the bill was allowed "without prejudice to the right of any party named as defendant to demur. On July 28, , the same defendants other than Hopson and Mange again demurred to the bill as last amended, on the same grounds that were taken in the earlier demurrer.
