Case Name: Nathan Bond versus Nathan Appleton
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1812-03
Citations: 7 Tyng 472
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nathan Bond versus Nathan Appleton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 393–396

Head Matter:
Nathan Bond versus Nathan Appleton.
By an act of the state of Neio Hampshire creating a banking corporation, it was provided, that if the corporation should refuse or neglect to pay their bills on demand, the original stockholders, their successors, assigns, and the members of the corporation in their private capacities should be liable to the holder. — It was holden that such only of the original stockholders, their successors, &c., as were members of the corporation at the time when payment was refused, were liable.
The plaintiff declares in case, for that in and by an act of the state of New Hampshire, made and passed on the 18th day of June, 1806, which act is now in force, and a copy of which is in Court to be produced, a certain corporation was established, by the name of The President, Directors, and Company of the Hillsborough Bank; and in and by the said act it is among other things enacted, that if the said corporation, at any time thereafter, should refuse or neglect to pay any of their said bills, when presented for payment in the usual manner, the original stockholders, their successors, assigns, and the members of the said corporation, should, in their private capacities, be jointly and severally liable to the holder of any bill or bills issued by the said corporation, for the payment thereof.
The plaintiff then alleges that the said corporation on, &c., at, &c., issued certain bills, signed by the president and cashier of the said corporation, for and in behalf of the corporation, [which bills are described,] payable to * J. F. or bearer on demand; and that he, being the bearer and holder of the said bills, presented them to the corporation for payment in the usual manner, which was refused ; and that afterwards he gave notice thereof to the said Appleton, who was then and there one of the original stockholders of the said corporation, or a successor or assignee of one of "the original stockholders in the same, or a member thereof; and then and there liable by reason thereof, and by the charter of the said corporation, to pay the bills of the sak. bank on the refusal or neglect of the said corporation to pay the same when thereunto requested in the usual manner, and then and there requested the said Appleton to pay him said bills; and that the said Appleton, then and there, in consideration thereof, and of his liability as aforesaid, promised the plaintiff to pay him the said bills; yet though requested, &c.
It was agreed by the parties, that the corporation mentioned in the declaration was duly incorporated as is therein alleged ; that in the act of incorporation it is, amongst other things, enacted “ that if said corporation at any time hereafter divide their stock previous to the payment of all their bills, or shall refuse or neglect to pay any of their bills, when presented for payment in the usual manner, the original stockholders, their successors, assigns, and the members of said corporation, shall, in their private capacities, be jointly and severally liable to the holder of any bill or bills issued by the said corporation, for the payment thereof, — any such member or members who shall have been compelled to make payment as aforesaid, shall hereby be authorized to recover of the remaining members of said corporation their proportion of the sum or sums paid as aforesaid, to be estimated according to their respective shares in said bank corporation.”—That the several bills set forth in the declaration were duly issued as therein is set forth; that the said bills afterwards, for a valuable consideration, became the property of the plaintiff, and that he was at the time the bond fide holder of the *same; that the same were presented by the plaintiff in the usual manner for payment at the bank on the 19th of October, 1809; that payment was refused, and has never since been made; that the defendant was afterwards, on the 13th of December, 1809, and before the bringing of this action, notified thereof by the plaintiff, and requested to pay the said bills; that the defendant was not one of the original stockholders, but on the 4th of November, 1806, purchased 200 shares in the bank, which he continued to hold from that day until the 20th of July, 1808, and during that time he received three dividends on the same; that on the day last mentioned he assigned and transferred all the stock he held in said bank, which was at that time solvent and in full credit; that he held no shares in the bank at the time the plaintiff became the holder of said bills, nor had he any interest in the said corporation, other than is hereinbefore set forth.
If, upon the foregoing statement, the Court should be of opinion, that the said Appleton was liable in this action, it was agreed that he should be defaulted, and judgment be rendered against him for the amount of the said bills, with interest thereon from such time as by the said statement he should be liable to pay interest. — But if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff could not, on the statement aforesaid, maintain his action, he was to become nonsuit.
Otis and Thatcher, for the plaintiff,
contended that the defendant, having once been a stockholder, was always afterwards held to answer personally for the neglect or refusal of the bank to pay their bills. This was the only true construction of the clause of the act of New Hampshire recited in the case ; and however novel the provision might be, or however hard might be its operation, still the legislature had a right to make the stipulation; and it was for those to whom the charter was granted to determine for themselves whether they would accept it on those terms, and for the defendant to exercise his discretion * whether he would become a member of the corporation, with such liabilities attached to the situation.
It is a settled rule of construction, that every word used in a statu'e or other writing is to have effect given to it if possible. Now, in this case, not only the original stockholders, but their successors, their assigns, and the members of the corporation for the time being, are made liable, jointly and severally. The defendant was a successor or assignee of one or more of the original stockholders. By becoming such, he induced upon himself the liabilities imposed by the charter, and though he has ceased to hold the stock, he has not thereby discharged himself of his responsibility. The hardship of the case is but a seeming one ; since it was in his power to have taken an indemnity from the person to whom he assigned his stock. It may be presumed that he did this; and if he neglected it, this furnishes no reason why he should not be held. To confine the right of action so that none but members at the time of the failure of the bank should be held responsible, would render the provision futile; since those members who should know the misconduct of the managers, and should foresee the mischief, could easily assign their shares to paupers, or to merely nominal persons, who would be wholly inadequate to indemnify the sufferers.
It is a well-known fact that the construction contended for by the plaintiff has many strong advocates among legal characters in .he state of New Hampshire, although no decision has yet been made of the question in the highest judicial court of that state.
Dexter and Jackson for the defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
In the construction of a statute of another state, any decision of a judicial court in such state would be entitled to much attention and respect from us, while endeavoring to ascertain the real intention of the legislature in such statute. But as we have no such aid in this case, we must give the best construction we are able to the act brought under our consideration in this case, in the * same manner we should construe an act of our own legislature.
The persons made liable for the payment of bills dishonored by the bank are " the original stockholders, their successors, assigns, and the members of the said corporation." The words are very extensive; but we think the reasonable construction of them to be, such of the original stockholders, and of their successors and assigns, as shall be members of the corporation at the time when payment of the bills shall be refused. This construction is confirmed by the remedy given in the close of the paragraph to the member or members who shall have been compelled to make payment by virtue of the preceding clause. That remedy is furnished to a member or members against the remaining members. These last must mean the existing members, or the remedy would be so difficult, as that it would be next to an impossibility to enforce it; whereas it would be very easy and simple, if it has relation only to the then members or stockholders in proportion to their respective shares.
Plaintiff nonsuit.