Cited by

Co. 67 Minn. 91, 97 , , 611: “What a man may reasonably anticipate is important, and may be decisive, in determining whether an act is negligent, but is not at all decisive in determining whether that act is the proximate canse of an injury which ensues.

Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487, 507 , ; Kanne v. Kanne, 119 Minn. 265, 271 , .

78 , 632 ; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , 69 N.W.

The rule is stated in Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , .

Helm v. Smith-Fee Co. 76 Minn. 328 , ; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , subd.

The holding of the trial court was in accord with the former holding of this court in' Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 -499, , where it was held that “such transferror is not liable for debts which existed at the time of his transfer, but have since been paid.

& Car Co. 48 Minn. 361 , ; Harper v. Carroll, 62 Minn. 152 , ; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , ; Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , ; Hosford v. Cuyuna Minneapolis Iron Co. 153 Minn. 186 , , and it is entirely consistent with equity jurisdiction and practice “to forestall a multiplicity of actions by bringing all the litigation into its grasp in one suit for a gen

Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487, 504 , .

1913D, 69; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , .

If the legal heirs were necessary parties, the court could have directed them to be made parties, or perhaps had the authority to dismiss on that ground, Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , , but should not have dismissed on the merits without an opportunity to plaintiff to bring them in.

Harper v. Carroll, 62 Minn. 152 , ; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , ; Hunt v. Doran, 92 Minn. 423, 427 , .

In an action against certain stockholders, it was held in Willius v. Mann, on the principle which had been established in Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , , that the stockholders of the reorganized bank were liable pi'imarily for the debts of the old and the new bank, and that the stockholders of the old bank were liable secondarily only for its debts, and that the remedies against the stockholders of the new bank should be exhausted before proceedi

This was *90 impliedly decided in the case of Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , , wherein this court held that, where a pledgee of stock registered it on the books of the corporation as transferred to him absolutely, he voluntarily made himself a stockholder, and that he was liable as such for the debts of the corporation.

h appeal in this case, we deem it proper to state that the liability of the defendants is not simply pro rata, but each is liable to the amount of his subscription, so far as it may be necessary to satisfy the claims of the creditors, and that judgment should be entered against him on this basis with provisions for the execution of ratable executions, as was done in the case of Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487, 492 , .

Defendant contends that under the rule in Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , , an independent action did not lie against defendant; that the transferee, Borsch, was a necessary party and primarily liable; and that defendant was only secondarily liable, and therefore the action was properly dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Harper v. Carroll, 62 Minn. 157 , ; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 490 , .

It was held in Harper_v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , , that, as between individual transferers and transferees of stock of a corporation, the liability of the transferers cannot be enforced until an effort has been made to collect from the transferees.

It is insisted that, upon these findings, the court erred in its legal conclusion that defendant was liable for the assessment made against him, under the provisions of section 2501, G. S. 1894, and the interpretation given thereto in Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 478 , , for the asserted reason that it was the duty of the defendant to effectuate a valid assignment of his stock, by having an entry thereof *267 on the stockbooks of the bank as provided in its by-laws, and that his failure in this r

Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , .

See Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , ; 1 Cook, Stockh.

Reference is here made to the opinion in the case of Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , , for full particulars as to this judgment.

Oswald v. Minneapolis Times Co., 65 Minn. 249 , ; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , .

Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , .

Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 , ; Bank v. Smith, 57 Minn. 376 , .