Mills v. Northwestern Printing And Publishing Company

• Decision Date: 17 June 1895
• Docket Number: 9479 -- (166)
• Citation: 63 N.W. 1024,61 Minn. 373
• Parties: WINNEBAGO PAPER MILLS v. NORTHWESTERN PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

63 N.W. 1024

61 Minn. 373

WINNEBAGO PAPER MILLS v. NORTHWESTERN PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY and Others

Nos. 9479 -- (166)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 17, 1895

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, entered in pursuance of an order for judgment by Smith, J. On application of defendant Tousley costs, including $ 10 statutory costs, were taxed by the clerk, notwithstanding plaintiff's objection, in favor of said defendant. Afterwards on application of defendants Trubey and Kelly, costs, including $ 10 costs, were taxed by the clerk, notwithstanding plaintiff's objection, in favor of said defendants. On appeal by plaintiff from the taxations, the court, Russell, J., affirmed the taxation as to defendant Tousley and modified the taxation as to defendants Trubey and Kelly, by striking out the item of statutory costs. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

C. E Brame, for appellant.

Wilkinson & Traxler, for respondent Tousley.

James N. Barnes, for respondent Trubey.

OPINION

START C. J.

It is admitted by appellant that this action is brought under the provisions of G. S. 1894, §§ 2600-2602, to recover a judgment against the defendant corporation upon certain promissory notes made by it, and to ascertain and enforce for the plaintiff's sole benefit the individual liability of the defendant stockholders for unpaid installments upon their stock subscriptions, and "for the amount due by reason of any stock held by any of such defendants." The trial court found that the defendant Kelly never was a stockholder; that the defendants Trubey and Tousley were each such stockholders at the time the notes were given, but that their stock had been paid for in full that there were other stockholders within the jurisdiction of the court; that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was the only creditor of the defendant corporation which was insolvent; and, as a conclusion of law, that the action be dismissed as to such defendants. Judgment was so entered, from which the plaintiff appealed.

The defendants paid all installments of stock subscriptions, and as no action to enforce against them the constitutional or double liability could be maintained under the provisions of G. S. 1894, c. 34, it follows that the action was properly dismissed. The remedy for enforcing such double liability of stockholders is that provided by G. S. 1894, c. 76 §§ 5889-5911, and it is the...