# McDonald v. Williams

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 397
McDonald v. Williams
This suit was commenced in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. It was brought by the plaintiff, as receiver of the Capital National Bank of Lincoln, Neb., for the purpose of recovering from the defendants, who were stockholders in the bank, the amount of certain dividends received by them before the appointment of a receiver.
Upon the trial of the case the circuit court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery covery of a certain amount. The defendants appealed from the decree because it was not in their favor, and the plaintiff appealed from it because the recovery provided for in the decree was not as much as he claimed to be entitled to. Upon the argument of the appeal in the circuit court of appeals certain questions of alw were presented, as to which that court desired the instruction of this court for their proper decision.
It appears from the statement of facts made by the court that the bank suspended payment in January, 1893, in a condition of hopeless insolvency, the stockholders, including the defendants, having been assessed to the full amount of their respective holdings; but the money thus obtained, added to the amount realized from the assets, will not be sufficient, even if all dividends paid during the bank's existence were repaid to the receiver, to pay 75 per cent. of the claims of the bank's creditors.
This suit was brought to compel the repayment of certain dividends paid by the bank to the defendants on that part of the capital of the bank represented by their stock of the par value of $5,000, on the ground, alleged in the bill, that each of said dividends was fraudulently declared and paid out of the capital of the bank, and not out of net profits.
A list of the dividends, and the amount thereof, paid by the bank from January, 1885, to July, 1892, both inclusive, is contained in the statement; and it is added that all dividends, except the last (July 12, 1892), were paid to the defendant Williams, a stockholder to the amount of $5,000, from the organization of the bank. The last dividend was paid to the defendant Dodd, who bought Williams' stock, and had the same transferred to his own name December 16, 1891.
When the dividend of January 6, 1889, was declared and paid, and when each subsequent dividend, down to and including July, 1891, was declared and paid, there were no net profits. The capital of the bank was impaired, and the dividends were paid out of the capital, but the bank was still solvent. When the dividends of January and July, 1892, were declared and paid, there were no net profits, the capital of the bank was lost, and the bank actually insolvent.
The defendants, neither of whom was an officer or director, were ignorant of the financial condition of the bank, and received the dividends in good faith, relying on the officers of the bank, and believing the dividends were coming out of the profits.
Upon these facts the court desired the instruction of this court for the proper decision of the following questions:
First question: Can the receiver of a national bank recover a dividend paid not at all out of profits, but entirely out of the capital, when the stockholder receiving such dividend acted in good faith, believing the same to be paid out of profits, and when the bank, at the time such dividend was declared and paid, was not insolvent?
Second question: Has a United States circuit court jurisdiction to entertain a bill in equity brought by a receiver of a national bank against stockholders to recover di idends which, as claimed, were improperly paid, when such suit is brought against two or more stockholders, and embraces two or more dividends, and when the objection that there is an adequate remedy at law is raised by the answer?
Edward Winslow Paige, for appellant.
Theodore De Witt, for appellees.
Mr. Justice PECKHAM, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse