3 Rounds v. McCormick, 114 III. 252.

4 Faull v. Alaska etc. Mining Co. 8 Sawy. 420; Wilbur v. Stockholders, 18 Bank. Reg. 178; Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 479; Bank of the United States v. Dallam, 4 Dana, 574; Allen v. Montgomery etc. R. R. Co. 11 Ala. 437; McCarthy v. Lavasche, 89 Ill. 270; 31 Am. Rep. 83; White v. Blum, 4 Neb. 555. Cf. Holmes v. Sherwood, 3 McCrary, 405; S, C. 16 Fed. Rep. 725; Corning v. Mohawk Valley Ins Co. 11 How. Pr. 151; and see Van Buren v. Chenango Ins. Co. 12 Barb. 675.

5 Brundage v. Monumental etc. Co. 12 Or 322.

6 Faull v. Alaska etc. Co. 8 Sawy. 420; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371; Lingham v. Rushing, 5 Ala. 403; Brown v. Union Ins. Co. 3 La. An. 1.7; Hannah v. Moberly Bank, 67 Mo. 678; Simpson v. Reynolds, 11 Mo. 591; Buan's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49; Hays v. Lycoming etc. Co. 99 Pa. Et. 621; Meints v. East St. Louis etc. Co. 89 Ill. 48. See, also, Dean v. Biggs, 25 Hun, 122; Coalfield Coal Co. v. Peck, 93 Ill. 139. Cf. Rand v. White Mountain R. R. Co. 40 N. H. 79; Hughes v. Oregonian R'y Co 11 Or. 158; Peterson v. Skiclair, 83 Pa. St. 250; Langford v. Ottumwa Water Power Co. 59 Iowa, 283; In re Glen Iron Works, 20 Fed. Rep. 674; S. C. 17 Fed. Rep. 324; Chandler v. Sidule, 10 N. B. Rep. 236.

7 Brewer v. Michigan Salt Assoc. 58 Mich. 351.

5

§ 429. (b). By bill in equity.-A bill in equity, however, so framed as that all other creditors may come in as parties plaintiff,' and making the corporation, and all the solvent stockholders within the jurisdiction of the court known to the plaintiff, parties defendant,3 is the corporate creditor's usual, and in some States his only, remedy. A case for equitable relief is made out by a creditor's bill against the shareholders of a corporation, which alleges that the corporation is insolvent, that the shareholders are subject to personal liability, and that the assets are being wasted by the institution by many creditors of separate suits at law." When one such bill has been filed, the court will not allow other creditors to file similar bills, but will require them all to join in one proceeding. A bill will not be held defective merely because it fails to make all the delinquent stockholders parties defendant.s

1 Patterson v. Lynde, 106 U. S. 519; Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216; Mills v. Scott, 90 U. S. 25; Brown v. Fisk, 23 Fed. Rep. 228; Holmes v. Sherwood, 3 McCrary, 405; Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520; Sawyer v.

Hoag, 17 Wall. 610; Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415; Masters v. Rossie etc. Mining Co. 2 Sand. Ch. 301; Morgan v. New York etc. R. R. Co. 10 Paige, 260; 40 Am. Dec. 244; Crease v. Babcock, 10 Met. 525; Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501; Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113; Carpenter v. Marine Bank, 14 Wis. 705; Coleman v. White, 14 Wis. 700; 80 Am. Dec. 797. If the other creditors do not elect to join it is immaterial, for although proper parties to the suit they are not necessary parties: Hatch y. Dana, 101 U. S. 205; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463; Crease v. Babcock, 10 Met. 525. Cf. Adler v. Milwaukee etc. Co. 13 Wis. 57.

2 Walsh v. Memphis etc. R. R. Co. 2 McCrary, 156; S. C. 19 Fed. Ren. 152; Wilbur v. Stockholders, 18 Bank Reg. 178; Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415; Wetherbee v. Baker, 33 N. J. Eq. 501. Contra, Walser v. Seligman. 21 Blatchf. 130; Wellman v. Howland etc. Works, 19 Fed. Rep. 51.

3 Walsh. Memphis etc. R. R. Co. 2 McCrary, 156; Mann v. Pentz, 3 New York, 415; Vick v. Lane, 53 Miss. 681; Hadley v. Russell, 40 N. II. 109; Ericson v. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371; 77 Am. Dec. 78; Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113; Pierce v. Milwaukee etc. Co. 33 Wis. 253; Coleman v. White, 14 Wis. 700; 80 Am. Dec. 797; Carpenter v. Marine Bank, 11 Wis. 705. Cf. Young v. New York etc. Steamship Co. 10 Abb. Pr. 299. All the solvent stockholders within the jurisdiction must be joined, except when this will be excused upon an allegation that the number is too great: Vick v. Lane, 56 Miss. 681, 681. Cf. Bonewitz v. Vanwert Co. Bank, 41 Ohio St. 79.

4 Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56, 60; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463; Holmes v. Sherwood, 3 McCrary, 405; S. C. 16 Fed. Rep. 725; Stevens v. Fox, 83 N. Y. 313; S. C. 17 Hun, 455; Pfohl v. Simpson, 74 N. J. 137; Griffith v. Mangam, 73 N. Y. 611; Mathez v. Neidig, 72 N. Y. 100; Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415; Dalton etc. R. R. Co. v. McDaniell, 55 Ga. 191; Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 480; 52 Am. Dec. 412; Hightower v. Mustian, 8 Ga. 506; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371; Allen v. Montgomery etc. R. R. Co. 11 Ala. 437; Crawford v. Rohrer, 59 Md. 599; Germantown etc. R'y Co. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124; 100 Am. Dec. 546; Wincock v. Turpin, 93 III. 135; Harmon v. Page, 62 Cal. 448. Cf. Sherwood v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. 12 How. Pr. 137.

5 Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216; Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520; Smith v. Huckabee, 53 Ala. 191; Jones v. Jarman, 34 Ark. 323; Harris v. First Parish in Dorchester, 23 Pick. 112; Knowlton v. Ackley, 8 Cush. 93; Erickson v. Nesmith, 15 Gray, 221; 97 Am. Dec. 78; Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113. Cf. Spear v. Grant, 16 Mass. 9; Hodges v. Silver Hill Mining Co. 9 Or. 200.

6 Junesma v. Schutler, 114 Ill. 156.

7 Creask v. Pabcock, 10 Met. 525; Cook on Stock & Stockh. § 205. But see Perry v. Turner, 55 Mo. 418.

8 Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co. 22 How. 30; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463: Holmes v. Sherwood, 3 McCrary, 405; Griffith v. Mangam, 13 N. Y. 611; Bartlett v. Drew, 37 N. Y. 587; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93; Brundage v. Monumental etc. Mining Co. 12 Or. 322. Cf. Von Schmidt v. Huntington, 1 Cal. 55; Lamar Ins. Co. v. Gulick, 102 Ill. 41.

§ 430. A call unnecessary in case of corporate insolvency.-In England the courts have, at the instance of corporate creditors, compelled the directors of a corporation to issue a call for unpaid sub

BEACH ON RAILWAYS-44

scriptions by mandamus,' but it is doubtful whether the writ would be granted by the American courts.2 For while a call is generally necessary to render the obligation to pay absolute," yet after the corporation has become insolvent it is unnecessary, inasmuch as a court of equity may then enforce the collection of the unpaid subscriptions without the intervention of the corporate management.* Where an assignment for the benefit of its creditors has been made by a corporation, it is competent for the court in chambers during vacation to authorize by order the collection of all the unpaid balance due on stock.5

1 Queen v. Victoria Park Co. 1 Ad. & E. N. S. 544; Queen v. Ledyard, 1 Ad. & E. N. S. 616; King v. St. Katherine Dock Co. 4 Barn. & Adol. 360.

2 Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205; Dalton etc. R. R. Co. v. McDaniell. 56 Ga. 191. Cf. Cuculler v. Union Ins. Co. 2 Rob. (La.) 573; Allen v. Montgomery etc. R. R. Co. 11 Ala. 437.

3 Vide supra, §§ 150, 151.

4 Vide supra, § 152; Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 155; Hatch v Dana, 101 U. S. 205, 214; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463; Wilbur v. Stockholders, 18 Bank Reg. 178; Myers v. Seeley, 10 Bank Reg. 411; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371; Glenn v. Semple, 80 Ala. 159; 60 Am. Rep. 92; Robinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93; Ward v. Griswoldsville Manuf. Co. 16 Conn. 593; Henry v. Vermilion etc. R. R. Co. 17 Ohio, 187. Cf. Germantown etc. R. R. Co. v. Fitley, 60 Penn. St. 124; Chandler v. Keith, 42 Iowa, 99; Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co. 22 How. 380; Adler v. Milwaukee Manuf. Co. 13 Wis. 62. And see Seymour v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134; Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353.

5 Citizens' etc. Trust Co. v. Gillespie, 115 Pa. St. 564.

§ 431. Limitation upon the shareholders' liability. As a general rule the statute of limitations begins to run on unpaid subscriptions to stock from the date upon which a call thereon falls due;1 if no call be made by the company, then the shareholder's liability dates only from the time of some authorized demand upon him for payment, or some order of court, and it is clear that the statute does not begin to run in his favor until such an order

or demand be made,' or, it would seem, from the time of the dissolution of the company; but insolvency is said not to set the statute of limitations in operation in the absence of a judgment of dissolution. The statute of limitations runs upon corporate debts in favor of the shareholders, not from the maturity of the debt but from the time of the dissolution of the corporation. In a late case in California, where the creditors of a corporation proposed to rely upon the shareholders, it was held that, under the statute limiting the time for the institution of an action against them to three years "after the discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact upon which the liability was

6

created," it is their duty to examine the corporate books to discover the condition of the stock; and the books being open to their inspection they will be charged with any knowledge which they might have obtained by such examination, and the time will be deemed as commencing to run when the debt is incurred."

1 Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 376; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93; Baltimore etc. Turnpike Co. v. Barnes, 6 Har. & J. 57.

2 Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 155.

3 See Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co. 109 U. S. 401; Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628; Terry v. Tubman, 92 U. S. 156; Glenn v. Dorsheimer, 24 Fed. Rep. 695; S. C. 23 Fed. Rep. 695; Payne v. Bullard, 23 Miss. 88; 55 Am. Dec. 74; Harmon v. Paige, 62 Cal. 448.

4 Hollingshead v. Woodard, 35 Hun, 410.

5 Garesche v. Lewis, 93 Mo. 197.

6 C.1. Code Civ. Proc. § 359.

7 Moore v. Boyd, 74 Cal. 67.

§ 434.

§ 435.

CHAPTER XVIII.

STOCKHOLDERS' MEETINGS.

432. Shareholders can act only in meeting assembled.

Of adjourned meetings and postponement of time of meeting.
Of the place of meeting-The general rule.

§ 440.

When the notice should specify the object of the meeting.

§ 445.

§ 416.

Who entitled to vote-New York and English statutes.
Stock held by the corporation not to be voted upon.

§ 451.

§ 452.

Combinations among shareholders to control the corporation,
Bribery.

§ 455. The presumption omnia rite acta, applicable to corporate meetings.

§ 432.

Shareholders can act only in meeting assembled.—Ordinarily, there are only two ways in which a corporation can act, to wit, either through its president and directors, or at a meeting of the stockholders duly convoked; accordingly, where the assent of the stockholders to any proposition