Cited by

Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , ; State ex rel.

Co. 40 Minn. 343, 346 , ; Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454, 461 , ; Zander v. Affeldt, supra, p. 496.

In Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , , this court said [p. 459]: “Although the liability is several, the stockholders may, and upon equitable considerations ought to, be joined in one action to enforce their several liability.” The procedure has since been changed.

Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , ; Way v. Barney, 116 Minn. 285 , , 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 648, Ann. Cas.

480 ; Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , 76 N.W.

Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , ; Greenfield v. Minnesota M. & D. Co. 138 Minn. 446 , ; Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U. S. 142 , 38 Sup.

& 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 general accounting and a complete adjustment of all rights

Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , ; 14 C. J. 973, and cases there cited.

Co. 61 Minn. 359 , ; Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , .

Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , ; Hancock Nat.

480; Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , ; Town of Hinckley v. Kettle River R. Co. 80 Minn. 32 , ; Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. Le Sueur County Co-op.

626; Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 462 , ; Hunt v. Doran, 92 Minn. 426 , .

Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454 , .

There can be no difference, in principle, in respect to the question now under consideration, between an action to recover on premium notes, when insolvency of the company has made an assessment on the members necessary, and an action to enforce a stockholder’s liability, constitutional or statutory; and it has al *135 ready been said by this court in Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454, 462 , , an action of the nature last mentioned, that “in principle, there can be no difference in this respect be

They are represented by the corporation in the action.” Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454, 462 , .