Court Opinion

ID: 7980685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:04:57.612266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:02.033081
License: Public Domain

Dibbll, J.
(dissenting.)
In my judgment the articles of incorporation do not confine the corporation’s activities to an exclusively manufacturing business. It can do something in the nature of a storage and elevator business *262aside from manufacturing; and perhaps some further business. The corporation, the record tends to show, construed its articles as allowing it to do a storage business and issue warehouse receipts. As stated in the opinion, a stockholder claiming an exemption from corporate debts must see to it that the articles clearly limit the authorized business to manufacturing. It seems to me that a fair construction of the awkwardly worded articles permits the company to go considerably beyond exclusive manufacturing within the following cases holding stockholders liable: Graff v. Minnesota Flint Rock Co. 147 Minn. 58, 179 N. W. 562; Meen v. Pioneer P. Co. 90 Minn. 501, 97 N. W. 140; Minnesota T. Ins. & T. Co. v. Regan, 72 Minn. 481, 75 N. W. 722; Commercial Bank of St. Paul v. Azotine Mnfg. Co. 66 Minn. 413, 69 N. W. 217; First Nat. Bank of Winona v. Winona Plow Co. 58 Minn. 167, 59 N. W. 997; Anderson v. Anderson Iron Co. 65 Minn. 281, 68 N. W. 49, 33 L. R. A. 510.