The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-07-31

exists only by force of the statutes Of the
state creating such corporation
Judge Symonds cited many cases in
line with his view OF the case, quoting at
great length from the opinion of Judge
Allen, of Massachusetts,, in the case OF
the Bank of North America VS.. Ridge,
154, Mass, 203.
He argued that the court should not
assume jurisdiction in this case, to en-
force against its own citizens the statutes
of the State of Kansas, where such an at
tempt to enforce those laws would be SO
plainly to subject the citizens of this
state to the risk of wrong and injury, and
where the court is SO plainly incapable of
doing complete justice.
But Judge Syinonds objected to the
bringing of the case in its present form
on another ground. 1--WE submit that
the cause Of action set out in the plain
tiff declaration in this case, is not such
as can be maintained in the courts of this
state. We think it is well settled by all
the authorities, both text writer's and
decided cases, whether agreeing with the
Massachusetts rule upon general
grounds or whether holding the opposite
view, that when the statute creating the
liability prescribes also a remedy, that
remedy is held to be exclusive, although
the effect of such a rule would be to
prevent any enforcement of the liability
exception the state creating it. 1t the
remedy prescribed is by equity it cannot
be enforced by any action at law. nor at
all within the courts of any state not
having general equity powers. !"
There is no allegation in the declarar
ton that the action authorized by the
Kansas statute is an action at law of the
nature, and with the incidents of
an action at law in this state.
Neither does the statute set out in the
declaration, in terms authorize pro-
ceeding against one stakeholder, nor by
the terms of the statnte itself is the LA
bility limited except with the amount of
the judgment.
Moreover, the action provided in the
Kansas statute set out in the declaration
as a means for enforcing the liability of
stockholders, is not, in point of fact,
such an action as this action at law in
Maine. By the laws of Kansas there is
in that state but one form of civil action,
and all distinction between actions at
law and suits in equity is abolished.
After discussing the legal points in
volved in his statement given above.
Judge Symonds said, had the action
been brought in Kansas equitable rights
and defences would have been open to
the defendant She might have shown
that the plaintiff by its own laches had
failed to collect its judgments from the
corporation, during the first two years of
its rendition, and before the issuance Of
alias execution. No such defence, how
ever, is open to her in this action at law
in this state.
Judge Symonds argued that for the
court to assume to enforce the liability
of the defendant under the Kansas stat
ute, by this action at law in this state,
'swould be to subject it's own citizen to a
process more burdensome than she
would have been subjected to if the pro-
ceedings had been begun within the
state which created the corporation of
which she is alleged to be stakeholder.
The authorities all agree that a court of
one state will not assume Jurisdiction to
enforce the statutes of another state
against its own citizens under such con-
ditions. In the language of Judge Bige-
low, 1.-THE comfy which requires us, in
the exercise of a judicial discretion. to
give effect to foreign statutes here, will
be sufficiently satisfied by allowing par
ties, in case like the present, to use in
our courts the same remedy, SO far as it
is available, as that prescribed by the
same statutes to persons enforcing their
rights in the jurisdiction of the state
that enacted the statutes
For the following reasons, among 9TH
ers, Judge Symonds held that the court
would not take jurisdiction, or attempt
to enforce the law of Kansas;
Upon the broad principles and for the gov
erning reasons stated by the Massachusetts
courts and adopted by the courts OF New
| Hampshire, and suggested even by the courts
| of this state.
2-Because there is no allegation in the dec
| laration that the action or remedy provided in
| the statute declared on is such one as can be
| employed in law in this state.
3-Because the action i'll fact by which de-
PENDANTS liability is here sought to be enforced
| is not the equitable action prescribed as rem
/ edy in such case by the laws OF Kansas, and is
| not so benefcent to the defendant.
| because the statute set out in the declara-
tion does not in terms grant the right to an exc
any individual stakeholder with liability such
| as is sought TO be enforced against this defend
| ant, but only against the stockholders as a
| whole.
! Mile Luline's wonderful leap. Peaks