Miss. 166; Coulter v. Robertson, 24 Miss. 278; 57 Am. Dec. 168; St. Philip's Church v. Zion etc. Church, 23 S. C. 297; Hopkins v. Whitesides, 1 Head, 31; St. Philip's Church v. Zion etc. Church, 23 S. C. 793; State v. Rives, 5 Ired. 297. Cf. Hopkins v. Whitesides, 1 Head, 31. But see Erie etc. R. R. Co. v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287.

3 Rexford v. Knight, 11 N. Y. 308, affirming S. C. 15 Barb. 627; Cook on Stock & Stockh. § 638; Plitt v. Cox, 43 Pa. St. 486. Cf. Commonwealth v Fisher, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa. Rep) 462. The rule is contra, however, in North Carolina: State v. Rives, 5 Ired. 297.

4 De Varaigne v. Fox, 2 Blatchf. 95; Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. 234; 6 Am. Rep. 70, reversing S. C. 3 Lans. 429; Heyward v. New York, 7 N. Y. 314; Dingley v. Boston, 100 Mass. 544; Haldeman v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 50 Pa. St. 425.

5 Lum v. Robertson, 6 Wall. 277; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 480; Mumma v. Potomac Co. 8 Pet. 281; Lothrop v. Stedman, 13 Blatchf. 134; Heth v. Barmore, 50 N. Y. 302; Bingham v. Weidewax, 1 N. Y. 509; In re Woven Tape Skirt Co. 8 Hun, 508; N. Y. Laws of 18.6, ch. 442; Robinson v. Lane, 19 Ga. 337; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371; Fox v. Horah, 1 Ired Fq. 358; 36 Am. Dec. 48; Read v. Frankfort Bank, 23 Me. 318; Blake v. Pors mouth etc. R. R. Co. 39 N. H. 435: Newfoundland R'y Construction Co. v. Schack, 40 N. J. Eq. 222. See Hamilton v. Accessory Transit Co. 26 Barb. 416; Commonwealth v. Boston, 9 Gray, 451.

6 Lum v. Robertson, 6 Wall. 277; Wood v. Dummer, 3 Mason, 308; Powell v. North Missouri R. R. Co. 42 Mo. 63. See Murray v. Vander bilt, 39 Barb. 140.

7 Krebs v. Carlisle Bank, 2 Wall. C. C. 33; Wood v. Dummer, 3 M.son, 303, 322; Burrall v. Bushwick R. R. Co. 75 N. Y. 211; Heath v. Bar more, 50 N. Y. 302; Frothingham v. Barney, 6 Hun. 366; James V. Woodruff, 10 Paige, 541; Dudley v. Price, 10 Mon. B. 84. See Fish v. Nebraska City etc. Co. 25 Fed. Rep. 795. Cf. Thornton v. Margina, Freight R's Co. 123 Mass. 32; Nathan v. Whitlock, 9 Paige, 152; Lea v. American Atlantic etc. Canal Co. 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 1; Curren v. State, 15 How. 304, 307; Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9, affirming S. C. 50 How. Pr. 254; Wilde v. Jenks, 4 Paige, 481.

8 Krebs v. Carlisle Bank, 2 Wall. C. C. 33; N. Y. Rev. Stat. ch. 181, art. 3, § 83; In re Bridgewater Navigation Co. (Limited), (Ch. Div. 1887), 3 R'y & Corp. Law J. 591. Cf. James v. Woodruff; 10 Paige, 541; Purlon v. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. 3 La. An. 19.

9 McGregor v. Home Ins. Co. 33 N. J. Eq. 181; In re London etc. Co. Law R. 5 Eq. 519. See, also, cases cited supra, § 572. But see Griffith v. Paget, 6 Ch. Div. 511, where the dissolution was by consolidation.

10 In re Bangor etc. Co. Law R. 20 Eq. 59.

11 N. Y. Laws of 1886, ch. 310, § 1.

12 It should be remembered that the so-called "Supreme Court" of New York corresponds very nearly to the circuit courts in other States. 13 N. Y. Laws of 1886, ch. 310, §§ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

§ 600. The same subject, continued-Of the rights of shareholders.-The right of shareholders to participate in the distribution of corporate assets upon dissolution cannot be taken from them by an act repealing the charter of the corporation. Upon

3

a dissolution and winding-up, the shareholders are entitled to an immediate settlement of the corporate affairs and distribution of assets. A stockholder instituting proceedings to recover his portion of the corporate assets upon dissolution, must bring his bill in equity. The corporation is a necessary party to an action by a shareholder against the person in whose hands the assets have been placed for distribution. The law of the State from which the corporation derives its charter controls the rights of its shareholders in the distribution of assets. A corporation chartered in several States may be dissolved in one of them without affecting its franchises in the others. A transfer of shares after dissolution is merely an equitable assignment of the shareholder's interest in the corporate assets."

1 Lothrop v. Stedman, 13 Blatchf. 134.

6

2 Taylor v. Earle, 8 Hun, 1; Frothingham v. Barney, 6 Hun, 366; Mc Vicker v. Ross, 55 Barb. 247.

3 Brown v. Adams, 5 Biss. 181. Cf. Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cutting, 27 Fed. Rep. 638.

4 Young v. Moses, 53 Ga. 628.

5 Hamilton v. Accessory Transit Co. 26 Barb. 46.

6 Hart v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 40 Conn. 524. Cf. Graham v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 118 U. S. 161; Covington etc. Bridge Co. v. Mayer, 31 Ohio St. 319, 325.

7 James v. Woodruff, 10 Paige, 541; S. C. affirmed, 2 Denio, 574; Bank of Commerce's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 59; Chappell's Case, Law R. 6 Ch. 902. See Callanan v. Edwards, 32 N. Y. 483; Sewell v. Chamberlain, 16 Gray, 501.

--

§ 601. Of a certain qualified existence after dissolution. After dissolution, a corporation cannot at common law engage in any business transaction, nor by contract incur any obligation or acquire any right; neither can it sue or be sued in a corporate capacity,' unless there be statutory provis

ion for a qualified prolongation of its existence to enable it to settle its affairs. For that purpose the corporate existence is frequently extended by stat utes authorizing and regulating dissolution. In Alabama the prolongation is for two years; * in some of the other States, for three years.5 But ordinarily the liquidation of the corporate affairs is conducted by a receiver or other officer appointed for that purpose. When, however, the dissolution has been voluntarily made by a surrender of the charter, the corporation retains full power, so far as necessary, to close up all its affairs, pay off its debts, and distribute its property, and for that purpose the board of directors continues to exist."

6

1 Saltmarsh v. Planters' etc. Bank, 17 Ala. 761; Bank of Louisiana v. Wilson, 19 La. An. 1; Miami Exporting Co. v. Gano, 13 Ohio, 239; City Ins. Co. v. Commercial Bank, 63 Ill. 318; Muscatine Turn Verein v. Funk, 13 Iowa, 469; Wood's Railway Law, 1715; Taylor on Corporations, § 435. 2 Saltmarsh v. Planters' etc Bank, 17 Ala. 761.

3 McGoo v. Scales, 9 Wall. 23; In re Independent Ins. Co. 1 Holmes, 103; Mason v. Pewabic Mining Co. 25 Fed. Rep. 832; Nevitt v. Pank of Port Gibson, 11 Miss. 513; Thornton v. Marginal Freight R'y Co. 123 Mass. 32; Crease v. Babcock, 10 Met. 525, 567; Folger v. Chase, 18 Pick. 63; Mariners' Bank v. Sewall, 50 Me. 220; Franklin Bank v. Cooper, 36 Me. 179; Se son v. City Bank, 12 Ohio St. 57; Muscatine Turn Verein v. Funck, 13 Iowa, 459; 1 How. Stat. (Mich.) 1241, § 4867. Cf. Greenwood v. Union Freight R. R. Co. 105 U. S. 13; Merrill v. Suffolk Bank, 31 Me. 5; 50 Am. Dec. 19.

4 Tuscaloosa etc. Assoc. v. Green, 48 Ala. 346.

5 Van Glahn v. De Rossett, 81 N. C. 467; Foster v. Essex Bank, 16 Mass. 215: 8 Am. Dec. 135; Michigan State Bank v. Gardner, 15 Gray, 362; Blake v. Portsmouth etc. R. R. Co. 39 N. H. 435; Herron v. Vance, 17 Ind. 535.

6 Taylor on Corporations, § 435; Lothrop v. Stedman, 13 Blatchf. 134, 143; Owen v. Smith, 31 Barb. 611; Van Glalin v. De Rosset, 81 N. C. 467. 7 Irvin v. Oregon etc. Co. 22 Hun, 598, 539

31-32-33