The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-07
THE CREDIT MoBIL1ER.

The Late James Fisk, Jr.'s Interest In
Twenty Thousa nd Shares OF tho Stock
Suit 20 Determine the Widow Fisk's
Right 20 Those Shares-Intunctton
Granted by Judge BlatchfOrd Against
the Credit MobiIier.
Yesterday Judge Blatchford, In the case or Lucy
d. Fisk, as executrix Of the late James Fisk, Jr.,
vs.. The Union Pacific Railroad Company, The Credit
Mobilier of America and Others granted the motion
recently made in the United States Circuit Court on
behalf of the plaintiff for Injunction restraining
the defendants from winding up the affairs of the
Credit Mobilier until the right OF Mrs. Fisk "a
10000 shares Of stock claimed to have been held In
that organization by her late husband James Fisk,
Jr.. shall have been determined. The following is
Judge Blatchforj's decision:-
THE DECISION.
1t appears from the papers that the profits grow.
ing out OF one OF the contracts must have reached
bilier Of America, as assignee and owner or such
contract so as to make that corporation, as such,
liable to respond In this suit to the paint and to
those on whose behalf the suit is brought, and to
the Union Pacific Railroad Company as creditors Of
such corporation for such profits, II any, defendant
IL liable 80 TO respond. 1t also satisfactorily ap-
pears that the Credit Mobiier OF America has some
property and that 1t has made one attempt to pro-
cure its dissolution. The property OF copartners Is
held in trust for creditors and may be pursued by
them into whosesoever hands 1t may come, as well
after before the dissolution OF corporation, UNI
chasers Hence the capital stock of corporation Is
deemed trust fund for all the debts OF the corpo.
ration, and no stakeholder can entitle himself to
any dividend or share Of such capital stock until all
the debts are paid II the capital stock should be
divided, leaving any debts unpaid, every stock
holder receiving his share OF the capital stock
would, through remedy in equity, be held liable.
pro rata, to contribute to the discharge OF such
debts out Of the fund in his hands. Upon the prin-
ciple that the property OF corporation s held by
It's officers In trust to be applied to the discharge OF
the legal debts of such corporation, Courts of
Equity interfere to restrain such officers from ap-
plying such property to any illegal purpose and to
compel restitution when any illegal application has
been made: e. story's 8, Eg Jnris sections, 1872
1t necessary to restrain jurisdiction over the cor
poration 1t cannot be permitted that, after juris
Court, the corporation should be permitted to
take steps to evade such jurlsdicti0n Dy procur-
it's ass ~ March The nte@
States Statutes at Large, 1884 and 1850. that writ
of Injunction shall not be granted to stay proceed.
to have, and cannot properly be construed to have.
any application, except to proceedings commenced
@
suit brought in Federal Court party defendant
could, by resOrtng to suit In State Court defeat
the Federal Court after 1t had obtained full juris-
dictiOn of the person and subject matter. More
over the provision Of the act OF 1903 must be con-
strued III connection with the provision OF section
a. OF the act of September "a 1889 o. United States
Statutes at Large and sly that the Federal Courts
snail nave power 10 issue Ill VIRUS WHICH may ne
necessary for the exercise OF their respective ju
risdictions. 1t may properly be considered as
necessary for the continued exercise OF the jurs
diction OF this Court the corporation in ques
ton that it should be restrained from taking steps
in State Court to put itself out of existence.
."The injunction asked for Is proper to restrain
the corporation from taking any proceedings for
its own dissolution. or for the appointment Of q
receiver OF Its effects for the distribution there
or among Its stockholders, or any other persons,
and from making any distribution or transfer OF
any of its effects II this Injunction shall at any
time interfere with the doing by the corporation
Of anything which 1t ought properly be allowed to
do, application may be made to modify it." D. d.
Field for the plaintiff; J. Emott and A. Stckney
for the defendants.