Case Name: Converse, Receiver, Appellant, vs. Hamilton, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1908-11-10
Citations: 136 Wis. 589
Docket Number: 
Parties: Converse, Receiver, Appellant, vs. Hamilton, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 589–594

Head Matter:
Converse, Receiver, Appellant, vs. Hamilton, Respondent.
October 2
November 10, 1908.
Interstate comity: Action by receiver of insolvent foreign corporar tion: Enforcement of stockholder’s statutory liability.
The courts of this state will not entertain, on the ground of comity, an action hy the receiver of an insolvent Minnesota corporation against a stockholder resident here to enforce collection of assessments levied hy a Minnesota court (under ch. 272, Laws of Minn. 1899) on account of the double liability of stockholders under the constitution and laws of that state, contrary to the policy of this state. Hunt v. Whewell, 122 Wis. 33, followed. Timlin, J., dissents.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
This action is brought against a resident of the state of Wisconsin to enforce a stockholder’s liability arising under the laws of Minnesota. In May, 1901, the Merchants’ Rational Bank of St. Paul recovered a judgment against the Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Company (hereinafter called the bankrupt), a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota, amounting to $2,936.07. Execution was issued upon said judgment and was returned unsatisfied, whereupon the plaintiff, brought an action for the sequestration of 'the stock, property, and effects of said bankrupt, and applied for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the same. The plaintiff receiver was appointed in said action in August, 1901. In -September, 1901, an order was made in the action, requiring the creditors of the bankrupt to become parties thereto and to appear and exhibit therein their claims against said bankrupt. In pursuance of such order the claims of creditors were allowed to the amount of $443,752.12.
Sec. 3, art. X, of the constitution of Minnesota provides that “each stockholder in any corporation (excepting those organized for the purpose of carrying on any kind of manufacturing or mechanical business) shall be liable to the amount of stock held or owned by him.” The supreme court of Minnesota held in the case of Merchants’ Nat. Banh v. Minnesota T. Mfg. Co. 90 Minn. 144, 95 N. W: 767, that the capital stock of the bankrupt was liable to assessment under this constitutional provision.
Under the law of Minnesota as it existed prior to 1899, the double liability of stockholders could only be enforced by instituting an action by or in behalf of the creditors against the corporation and its stockholders in the state of Minnesota, This law was materially modified by ch. 272, Gen. Laws of Minn. 1899, which statute was in effect at the time the receiver was appointed in this action. A statement of the substance of the Minnesota statute referred to, in so far as it is necessary to here state it, will be found in the report of Hunt v. Whemell, 122 Wis. 33, 34, 35, 99 N. W. 599.
At the time the receiver was appointed, the defendant, a resident of the state of Wisconsin, was the owner of twenty-one shares of the stock of the bankrupt company, of the par value of $1,050. On December 22, 1902, an order was made in the receivership proceeding levying an assessment of thirty-six per cent, upon the outstanding capital stock of said corporation and directing the receiver to institute the necessary proceedings to collect such assessment. On June 11, 1907, a second order was made levying a like assessment of sixty-four per cent, on the capital stock of the corporation for the purpose of paying its debts, and the receiver was by said order directed to enforce collection of such assessment. This action is brought upon both assessments. A demurrer to the complaint was interposed, which was sustained, and, the plaintiff declining to amend, final judgment was entered dismissing the complaint, from which judgment this appeal is taken.
For the appellant there was a brief by Jones & Schvhrvng, ■attorneys, and C. A. Severance, of counsel, and oral argument by B. W. J ones.
Eor the respondent there was a brief by Sanborn & Blake, and oral argument by John B. Sanborn.

Opinion:
BaeNes, J.
It is conceded by counsel for both parties in this case that every controverted question therein involved was also involved and decided in Hunt v. Whewell, 122 Wis. 33, 99 N. W. 599. It was there said in reference to the cause of action sued upon: "The liability is statutory, the remedy to enforce it is statutory, and the appellant's title is a creature of the statute." A conclusion was reached that, as to such a cause of action, the courts of this state could, if they •chose, close their doors and refuse to entertain the same. The opinion in Hurd v. Whewell covers every phase of this case that it is considered by the court necessary or even advisable to cover here. As far as this court is concerned, the rule of dare decisis as to all questions involved will be applied until a higher tribunal reaches a different conclusion
In the case of Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 516, 21 Sup. Ct. 755, relied upon by appellant's counsel as practically overruling Hunt v. Whewell, the question of comity was not involved, was not discussed, and was not passed upon in any way. The right to refuse comity was the sole question decided in Hurd v. Whewell. The Bernheimer Case, therefore, is not in conflict therewith.
Eor reasons given in Hunt v. Whewell, and upon the grounds therein stated, the judgment in this case should be affirmed.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.