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

a IeSJ case was drplteu III JIG OuPl OAiO
Court Saturday morning. and in the event
of decision against the defendant 1T
will be followed by other actions at law
against many other parties in this state,
1t was Kansas case, but the double
liability law as applied to stockholders
in certain corporations being very much
the same in several of the Western states,
notably states where large amount OF
Maine money has been invested, it will
be of general interest.
The case was that of the Ma ional Bank
OF Atchison, Kansas, VS.. Mrs. FL. w. B.
Conner, wife of ex-Gov. Conner, and is
one of series of actions against citi-
zens of this state to enforce alleged per
sonal liability of the defendant under
statute of Kansas, as stakeholder of the
United States Building Company.
Hon. A. F. Moulton argued the case
for the bank and Hon. j. w. Symonds
for the defendant.
The legal question was, ssIs the plain
lifts declaration sufficient in law, or, in
other words, does it present a cause OF
action maintainable in this state?'
The law of Kansas regarding the liabil-
ity Of stockholders in corporations or
ganized in that state is as follows
If any execution shall have been issued
against the property or effects of a corporation,
except railway or religious or charitable
CORPORATION, and there cannot be found any
property wherein to levy such execution, then
execution may be issued against any OF the
stockholders, to an extent equal IN amount 10
the amount of stock by him or her owned, to-
gether with any amount unpaid thereon; ! but no
execution shall issue against any stockholder.
except upon an order of the court in which the
action, suit or other proceedings Shall nave
been brought or instituted, made upon motion
in open court, after reasonable notice in writing
to the person or persons sought to be charged;
and upon such motion such court may order
execution to issue accordingly; or the plaintiff
in the execution may proceed by action to charge
the stockholders with the amount OF his ]udg-
ment
The Importance of this case to the
thousands of stockholders in western
corporations had the effect of pretty well
filling the court room, leading business
men being of the audience.
Mr.. Moulton stated his case as follows:
The defendant, like many other Maine
citizens, is a stakeholder of the company
named. The bank recovered Judgment
against the company for note issued by
it, Dec. 9, 1890. The bank was itself
claimed to be a stakeholder. which it did
not admit, but credited its Judgment
with $12, 900, the full amount of the LA
bility claimed against it.
Mr.. Moulton claimed that the general
question of the constitutionality of state
law imposing liability upon stockholders
in corporations is now admitted. In sup
port Of this statement he cited numerous
cases and legal authorities.
He argued that the right and remedy
of creditors of Kansas corporations are
within the statute authorizing such cor
porations, and no question has been raised
in the Kansas courts as to the right to
recover under their statutes.
He claimed that the case at bar is based
upon several liability only, and is fully
sustained by the supreme court OF Kan
sas, constituting the statute giving corpor-
alton creditors the right to enforce their
judgments against individual stockhold-
ers in each case to the extent of their
double liability.
In conclusion, Mr.. Moulton said: In
this case at bar this court is called upon
to enforce personal liability of the de-
PENDANT found within its jurisdiction,
fixed and existing under the provisions
of the laws of the state of Kansas, under
statutory constructor as held by the
highest tribunal of that state. Can there
be any doubt of the plaintiffs right to
recover under the form of the action?'
Judge Symonds, in the course OF his
argument said: whether or not the
declaration presents cause of action in
Kansas, we contend that it does not pres
emit cause OF action that which can be
maintained in the courts of this state.
The statutes of the state of Kansas have
no extra territorial force.
ssWhether or not this court will assume
jurisdiction in the present case being a
matter resting entirely in comfy and in
the discretion of this court is it such a
case as this court, having due regard for
the rights of its own citizens and its
power to do complete justice to all par
ties, will entertain and attempt to deter
mine?
We do not find case in this state
where this question has ever been oil
rectly presented and decided, or where
it has been discussed at any length.
| Chief Justice Weston rs, Me.) in the
case of a Maine stakeholder in Georgia
| corporation, said: Whether the courts
of other states are bound TO notice and
give effect to this remedial provision may
be questionable.
Although the case was decided upon
other grounds, the language of the opin-
ion discloses doubt whether the courts
| of this state will entertain at all, OF at
tempt to give effect to statutory pro-
| visions of other states creating personal
| Ito hilitv of Stockholders in cOrDOratiOns