solved by the vote of a majority of its stockholders; and equity will not interfere, at the suit of a minority, to enjoin a voluntary winding-up, unless fraud, or a disregard of the rights of the minority, be proven. But there is no power in the majority to dissolve, when the corporate enterprise is in a prosperous condition."

1 Webster v. Turner, 21 Hun, 264; Slee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456; 10 Am. Dec. 273; Barclay v. Talman, 4 Edw. Ch. 124, and note; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 573, 585; Savage v. Walshe, 26 Ala. 619; La Grange etc. R. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Coldw. 420; Chesapeake etc. Canal Co. v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 4 Gill & J. 1, 121; Folger v. Columbian Ins. Co. 99 Mass. 274; 96 Am. Dec. 747; Boston Glass Manuf. v. Langdon, 24 Pick. 49, 53; 35 Am. Dec. 292; 2 Kent's Commentaries, 305, 313, 314. C. McLaren v. Pennington, 1 Paige, 102, 107; Hampshire v. Franklin, 16 Mass. 76, 87; King v. Amery, 2 Term Rep. 515, 531; King v. Gray, 8 Mod. Rep. 358.

2 Houston v. Jefferson College, C3 Pa. St. 437. See Mumma v. Potomac Co. 8 Pet. 281, 287; Webster v. Turner, 12 Hun, 264; Slee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456; 10 Am. Dec. 273; Savage v. Walshe, 26 Ala. 619; La Grange etc. R. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Coldw. 420; Enfield etc. Bridge Co. v. Connecticut River Co. 7 Conn. 28, 45.

3 Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. R. Co. 30 Pa. St. 42; 72 Am. Dec. 685; Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Collins, 40 Ga. 582. Cf. Portland etc. Co. v. Portland, 12 Mon. B. 77.

4 Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. New York etc. R. R. Co. 13 R. I. 260. Cf. Wilson v. Central Bridge Co. 9 R. I. 590, 598; Treadwell v. Salisbury Manuf. Co. 7 Gray, 393, 404; 66 Am. Dec. 490.

5 Hancock v. Holbrook, 9 Fed. Rep. 353, 362; Treadwell v. Salisbury Manuf. Co. 7 Gray, 393, 405; 66 Am. Dec. 490; Revere v. Boston etc. Co. 15 Pick. 351; Wilson v. Central Bridge Co. 9 R. I. 590; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co 22 N. J. Eq. 130, 192, 404; McCurdy v. Myers, 44 Pa. St. 535; Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. R. Co. 30 Pa. St. 42; 72 Am. Dec. 635; Bank of Switzerland v. Bank of Turkey, 6 Law T. N. S. 549; Sargent v. Webster, 13 Met. 504; 46 Am. Dec. 743; Mayor of Colchester v. Lawton, 1 Ves. & B. 226, 240, 244; Binney's Case, 2 Bland. 99; Angell & Ames on Corporations, § 127 et seq. Cf. Kean v. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 401; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 573; Wilson v. Miers, 10 Com. B. N. S. 348. Contra, Curien v. Santim, 16 La. An. 27; Polar Star Lodge v. Polar Star Lodge, 16 La. An. 53.

6 Booth v. Bunce, 33.N. Y. 139; 88 Am. Dec. 372; People v. Hektograph Co. 10 Abb. N. Cas. 358; Treadwell v. Salisbury Manuf. Co. 7 Gray, 393, 406; 66 Am. Dec. 490; Hodges v. New England Screw Co. 1 R. I. 347; 53 Am. Dec. 624; In re Beaujolais Wine Co. Law R. 3 Ch. 15; In re London etc. Discount Co. Law R. 1 Eq. 277. Cf. White Mountains R. R. Co. v. White Mountains etc. R. R. Co. 50 N. H. 50; Hodges v. New England Screw Co. 1 R. I. 312; S. C. 3 R. I. 1; 53 Am. Dec. 624; Rorke v. Thomas, 56 N Y. 559; Barclay v. Quicksilver Mining Co. 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 283; S. C. 6 Lans. 25. See, also, Bronson v. La Crosse R'y Co. 2 Wall. 283; Mussina v. Goldthwaite, 34 Tex. 125; 7 Am. Rep. 281; Shawhan v. Linn, 79 Ky. 300; Young v. Moses, 53 Ga. 628; Talbot v. Scripps, 31 Mich. 268; Putnam v. Sweet, 1 Chand. 286.

7 Denike v. New York etc. Co. 80 N. Y. 599, 606; Treadwell v. Salisbury Manuf. Co. 7 Gray, 393, 405; 66 Am. Dec. 490.

₫ 579. Of the authority and duty of directors respecting surrender.-The directors of a corporation can take no steps toward effecting a dissolution ithout express authority from the shareholders.' For boards of directors are agents of the corporation to manage its affairs, and carry out the purpose and object of its formation, and not to inflict upon it political death. And what the directors cannot do directly they cannot effect indirectly by conveying and disposing of property of the corporation which is essential to the continuance of its business. When, however, dissolution has been determined upon by. the shareholders, the directors and officers are the proper persons to carry the resolution into effect."

2

1 Abbot v. American etc. Co. 33 Barb. 578; Buford v. Keokuk etc. Packet Co. 3 Mo. App. 159.

2 Abbot v. American etc. Co. 33 Barb. 578, 591.

3 Abbot v. American etc. Co. 33 Barb. 578; Buford v. Keokuk etc. Packet Co. 3 Mo. App. 159, 166; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co. 24 N. J. Eq. 455; Kean v. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 401.

4 Hancock v. Holbrook, 9 Fed. Rep. 353; Marr v. Union Bank, 4 Cold. 484; Treadwell v. Salisbury Manuf. Co. 7 Gray, 393; 66 Am. Dec. 490; In re Suburban Hotel Co. Law R. 2 Ch. 737; In re Factage Parisien, 34 Law J. Ch. 140; S. C. 13 Week. R. 214, 330; Bank of Switzerland v. Bank of Turkey, 5 Law T. N. S. 549.

§ 580. Acceptance of surrender by the State. The surrender of a charter can only be made by some formal solemn act of the corporation, and will be of no avail until accepted by the government. There must be the same agreement of the parties to dissolve that there was to form the compact. It is the acceptance which gives efficacy to the surrender.1 Even the unanimous consent of the shareholders is not sufficient to dissolve a corporation without acceptance of the surrender by the State. Merely notifying the executive of the government that a dissolution has been made, is not sufficient to effect,

a dissolution. Nothing but an act of the legislature repealing its charter, or a decree of a competent court, can dissolve a corporation so as to preclude suits and actions against it to enforce its debts and liabilities. The most usual manner of accepting the surrender of a corporate charter by the State is through the medium of the judicial department, by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction."

1 Kincaid v. Dwinelle, 59 N. Y. 548; New York etc. Works v. Smith, 4 Duer, 362; Ward v. Sea Ins. Co. 7 Paige, 294; Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396; Portland etc. Co. v. Portland, 12 Mon. B. 77; Polar Star Lodge v. Polar Star Lodge, 16 La. An. 53; Mechanics' Bank v. Heard, 37 Ga. 401; Morris v. Smithville, 1 Swan, 164: Boston etc. Manufactory v. Langdon, 24 Pick. 49, 53; 35 Am. Dec. 292; Wilson v. Central Bridge Co. 9 R. I. 530, notwithstanding Webster v. Turner, 12 Hun. 264, to the contrary; Bruce v. Platt, 80 N. Y. 379; Bradt v. Benedict, 17 N. Y. 96; Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 473. Cf. Slee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456, 474; 10 Am. Dec. 273; Briggs v. Penniman, 8 Conn. 387; 18 Am. Dec. 454; People v. Bank of Hudson, 6 Conn. 217. At common law the surrender was to the king, and it was requisite that he should accept it: King v. Amery, 2 Term Rep. 515, 531; King v. Gray, 8 Mod. Rep. 358.

2 Wilson v. Central Bridge Co. 9 R. I. 590. See Kincaid v. Dwinelle, 59 N. Y. 548; Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396.

3 Revere v. Boston etc. Co. 15 Pick. 351, 360.

4 Ward v Sea Ins. Co. 7 Paige, 294; New York etc. Works v. Smith, 4 Duer, 362; Lake Ontario National Bank v. Onondago County Bank, 7 Hun. 551; S. P. Kincaid v. Dwinelle, 59 N. Y. 548, 552. See Curien v. Santini, 16 La. An. 27; Portland etc. Co. v. Portland, 12 Mon. B. 77; La Grange etc. R. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420; Morris v. Smithville, 1 Swan, 164; Polar Star Lodge v. Polar Star Lodge, 16 La. An. 53; Curien v. Santini, 16 La. An. 27; Campbell v. Mississippi Union Bank, 7 Miss. 625; Mechanics' Bank v. Heard, 37 Ga. 401; Boston Glass Co. v. Langdon, 24 Pick, 49; 35 Am. Dec. 292; Wilson v. Central Bridge Co. 9 R. I. 590; Penobscot Broom Corp. v. Lamson, 16 Me. 224; 33 Am. Dec. 656; Enfield etc. Bridge Co. v. Connecticut River Co. 7 Conn. 28, 45 Cf. Nimmons v. Tappan, 2 Sweeney, 652; Revere v. Boston etc. Co. 15 Pick. 351.

5 Mechanics' Bank v. Heard, 37 Ga. 401; West v. Carolina etc. Ins. Co. 31 Ark. 476; La Grange etc. R. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420, 438; Norris v. Smithville, 1 Swan (Tenn), 164; Boston Glass Co. v. Langdon, 24 Pick, 49, 53; 35 Am. Dec. 292; Revere v. Boston etc. Co. 15 Pick. 351; Enfield etc. Bridge Co. v. Connecticut River Co. 7 Conn. 28, 45; Wilson v. Central Bridge Co. 4 R. I. 590; Town v. Bank of River Raisin, 2 Doug. (Mich.), 530, 539.

§ 581. Dissolution by consolidation.-The dissolution of corporations is frequently effected by consolidation with other companies. But while consolidation usually works a dissolution of one or

Вчит

But r

3

all the companies entering into the agreement,' it is by no means the necessary result. Whether it be or no, depends mainly upon the construction of the particular statute under which the consolidation is effected. But dissolution cannot be effected indirectly by consolidation against the will of a dissenting shareholder, when it could not be effected directly by a winding-up. When a corporation is dissolved for the purpose of consolidation with another, shareholders who do not desire to become members of the consolidated company, are entitled to receive the value of their shares in money; and they may enjoin the transaction until the payment be secured to them. They cannot be compelled to accept the stock of the consolidated company. So, it is decided that a lease of the corporate property and franchises, with a reservation of rental to be distributed as dividends among the shareholders, is not legal as against dissenting shareholders, unless provision be made for paying them the value of their stock in cash. The dissolving company may, however, accept in payment for its property and franchises, the stock of the consolidated company, if it be marketable and readily convertible into money for the purpose of distribution among those of its shareholders who are unwilling to accept the shares themselves."

1 Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. 25, 40; Powell v. North Missouri R. R. Co. 42 Mo. 63; McMahan v. Morrison, 16 Ind. 172; 79 Am. Dec. 418; State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46; 73 Am. Dec. 405; Racine etc. R. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 49 Ill. 331, 319; 95 Am. Dec. 595.

2 Vide supra, § 543.

3 Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. R. Co. 30 Pa. St. 42; 72 Am. Dec. 685; Zabriskie v. Hackensack etc. R. R. Co. 18 N. J. Eq. 178; 90 Am. Dec. 617; Kean v. Johnston, 9 N. J. Lq. 407.

4 Kelly v. Mariposa etc. Co. 4 Hun, 632; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co. 24 N. J. Eq. 455; 3. C. 22 N. J. Eq. 130; Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. R. Co. 30 Pa. St. 42; 72 Am. Dec. 685; In re United Ports Ins. etc. Co. Law

BEACH ON RAILWAYS-60

R. 8 Ch. 1002; State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46; 79 Am. Dec. 405; Perret's Case, Law R. 15 Eq. 250; Ex parte Fox, Law R. 6 Ch. 176, 184; Bagsham's Case. Law R. 4 Eq. 341; Clinch v. Financial Corporation, Law R. 5 Eq. 450, 4.2; S. C. Law R. 4 Ch. 117. Cf. Clearwater v. Meredith. 1 Wall. 25; Nugent v. Putnam Co. 3 Biss. 105; Nugent v. Supervisor, 19 Wall. 211; McMahan v. Morrison, 16 Ind. 172; 79 Am. Dec. 418; Mowry v. Indiana etc. R. R. Co. 4 Biss. 78; New Jersey Zinc Co. v. New Jersey Franklinite Co. 13 N. J. Eq. 322; 8. C. 15 N. J. Eq. 418; In re Anglo-Greek Steam Co. Law R. 2 Eq. İ,

5 Frothingham v. Barney, 6 Hun, 366; McCurdy v. Meyers, 44 Pa. St. 535; Bird v. Bird's etc. Co. Law R. 9 Ch. 358; Clinch v. Financial Corporation, Law R. 4 Ch. 117; Ex parte Bagshaw, Law R. 4 Eq. 341.

6 Conro v. Port Henry etc. Co. 12 Barb. 27; Middlesex etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 115 Mass. 351; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co. 24 N. J. Eq. 455; Gratz v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 41 Pa. St. 447; State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46; 79 Am. Dec. 405; Midland R'y Co. v. Great Western R'y Co. Law R. 8 Ch. 841; Winch v. Birkenhead etc. R. R. Co. 5 De Gex & S. 562. Cf. Featherstonhaugh v. Lee Moor etc. Co. Law R. 1 Eq. 318; Cook on Stock & Stockh. § 636.

7 Treadwell v. Salisbury Manuf. Co. 7 Gray, 392; 65 Am. Dec. 490. Cf. Wilson v. Central Bridge Co. 9 R. I. 590. See, also, Buford v. Keokuk etc. Packet Co. 3 Mo. App. 159; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co. 22 N. J. Eq. 130, 415; S. C. 24 N. J. Eq. 455; Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. R Co. 30 Pa. St. 42; 72 Am. Dec. 685; Middlesex etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 115 Mass. 317, 351; Conro v. Port Henry etc. Co. 12 Barb. 27; Gratz v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 41 Pa. St. 447; Midland R'y Co. v. Great Western R'y Co. Law R. 8 Ch. 841; Featherstonhaugh v. Lee Moor etc. Co. Law R. 1 Eq. 318; Winch v. Birkenhead etc. R. R. Co. 5 De Gex & S. 552.

§ 582. Dissolution by bill in equity brought by creditors or shareholders, or directors. —— Creditors or stockholders, who have an interest in closing up the affairs of a corporation, and having its effects applied to the payment of its debts or distributed among its stockholders, may file a bill against a corporation to have a dissolution judicially declared, and its concerns wound up under the direction of the court." But it is doubtful whether creditors "at large can file a bill for dissolution and winding-up. In New York, a stockholder or creditor must first apply to the attorney-general to institute the proceedings; but upon his failure to do so for sixty days, the stockholder or creditor may himself obtain leave of court to commence the action. A solvent corporation will not be wound up at the suit of a minority of its shareholders on

2