Cited by

Dunn v. State Bank of Minneapolis, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266 , ; Atwater v. Smith, 73 Minn. 507 , ; Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277 , ; Langworthy v. C. C. Washburn F. M. Co. 77 Minn. 256 , ; State ex rel.

Earlier cases in point are Dunn v. State Bank, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277 , .

Dunn v. State Bank, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277 , ; Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , ; Henderson v. Crosby, 156 Minn. 323 , ; Provan v. Bondeson, 157 Minn. 478 , .

Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , .

Even though the corporation began to do business before it complied with the statute, defendant cannot escape liability, for, as Judge Mitchell said in Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , , it would never do to hold that, after a corporation had gone into business and dealt with the public in violation of a statutory provision, its stock is void and the stockholders not liable to creditors.

defendants in not sooner discovering at least the utter and hopeless insolvency of the bank, and the large amount of corporate indebtedness created since the stock was issued, and which is still outstanding, the right to rescind should be denied, according to the overwhelming weight of authority in this country, even from those courts which have not adopted the English rule.” Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267, 274 , .

Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Lantry v. Wallace, 182 U. S. 536 , 21 Sup.

See Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267, 277 , , 1 Cook, Corporations (7th ed.) §§ 163, 164.

Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Dunn v. State Bank, 59 Minn. 221 , .

Dunn v. State Bank of Minneapolis, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266 , .

See Dunn v. State Bank, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266 , ; Wyman v. Gillett, 54 Minn. 536 , ; Dettra v. Kestner, 147 Pa.

Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , ; Veeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295 .

See Dunn v. State Bank, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , .

e creditors could, without fault, believe that the increase had been lawfully effected and the necessary steps had been taken, there the doctrine of estoppel may apply, and the increased stock be deemed valid as against the creditors who have acted upon the faith of such increase.” This is quoted with approval in the latter case, and both cases *278 are cited with approval in Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 , .