Patterson v. Lynde
Citations
- 112 Ill. 196
Syllabus
<p>1. Corporations—stockholders—in case of an insolvent corporation—remedy of creditors—unpaid subscriptions. Creditors, under proper circumstances, are not compelled to wait for the winding up of insolvent corporations, but may proceed to subject their unpaid subscriptions to the payment of their claims; but to do so they must first recover a judgment at law in the courts of this State, and have execution returned unsatisfied.</p> <p>2. In such case, the creditor is subrogated to the place of the debtor corporation, and the proceeding is in the nature of an equitable attachment, by which the debts due the company may be applied to the payment of its own debts.</p> <p>3. A foreign insolvent corporation owing debts, if still in existence, can be compelled, by mandamus or bill in equity, to collect its unpaid subscriptions wherever the stockholders may reside; and if it has ceased to exist, a receiver should be appointed, and the courts of other States, as a matter of comity, would recognize the right of the receiver, the same as they would the corporation itself if still in existence, to prosecute actions at law for the recovery of unpaid subscriptions.</p> <p>4. Unpaid subscriptions are a trust fund for the payment of the debts of the corporation, which is the trustee. When, therefore, the corporation has ceased to exist., then, upon the principle that a trust shall not fail, a court of equity will take jurisdiction and wind up its affairs.</p> <p>5. Saws—extent of stockholder’s liability after corporation has ceased to exist—adjustment as between the stockholders themselves. Where a corporation has ceased to exist, its assets in excess of what is necessary to pay its debts belong to the stockholders, and the duty of the stockholder in such case is only to pay his pro rata share of the amount needed to pay the debts. This duty is upon all stockholders owing for stock, and it is the duty of the court to adjust the equities between the different stockholders.</p> <p>6
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Tuttle v. National Bank of the Republic of St. LouisIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-03-30· cited 24×
- Harris-Woodbury Lumber Co. v. CoffinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina· 1910-04-28· cited 16×
- Sullivan v. FarnsworthTennessee Supreme Court· 1915-04-15· cited 13×
- Small v. SmithSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1901-06-12· cited 5×
- Barnes v. WheatonNew York Supreme Court· 1894-07-15· cited 4×
- Curran v. Bradner, Smith & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1888-12-18· cited 4×
- Schertz v. First National Bank of ChesterAppellate Court of Illinois· 1893-05-25· cited 2×
- Mead v. DaviesAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-07-20· cited 2×
- Swan Land & Cattle Co. v. FrankU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois· 1889-07-22· cited 2×
- Turner Bros. v. Alabama Mining & Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1887-06-14· cited 1×
- Coleman v. HoweAppellate Court of Illinois· 1893-10-28
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Patterson v. LyndeSupreme Court· 1883-01-18· cited 48×
- Adler v. Milwaukee Patent Brick Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1860-11-19· cited 39×
- Steere v. HoaglandIllinois Supreme Court· 1866-01-15· cited 30×
- Greenway v. ThomasIllinois Supreme Court· 1853-06-15· cited 22×
- Dayton v. . BorstNew York Court of Appeals· 1865-03-05· cited 21×
- Ladd & Bush v. CartwrightOregon Supreme Court· 1879-01-15· cited 21×
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1883-10-01· cited 18×
- Chandler v. SiddleU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa· 1874-05-15· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.