Cited by

In Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213, 216 , , it is stated: .

In Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213, 215 , , it was said: “The usual evidence of who are stockholders in a corporation is the stock record of the corporation.

Parker v. Merritt, 164 Minn. 305 , ; Clark v. Wilder, 157 Minn. 449 , ; Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , .

706; Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , ; Henderson v. Crosby, 156 Minn. 323 , ; Wilcox Trux, Inc. v. Rosenberger, 156 Minn. 487 , ; Clark v. Wilder, 157 Minn. 449 , ; Provan v. Bondeson, 157 Minn. 478 , ; Zander v. Schackel, 161 Minn. 116 , ; Woodward v. Sonnesyn, 162 Min

The case of Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , , seems decisive of this case.

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 , .

The case therefore falls within the rule stated in Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , , and defendant comes too late with his attempted defense now that the rights of creditors have intervened.

A very different rule of diligence is required between him and the creditors than is required as between him and the corporation.” , Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213, 216 , .

Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , ; Henderson v. Crosby, 156 Minn. 323 , ; Supornick v. National Council K. & L. of S. 141 Minn. 306 , .

The mere fact of insolvency of the corporation alone will not defeat the subscriber’s or purchaser’s right of rescission, where he has: been diligent in discovering the fraud and repudiating the contract.” 14 C. J. 601; Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , ; Fear v. Bartlett, 81 Md.

Dunn v. State Bank of Minneapolis, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , ; Olson v. State Bank, supra; Scott v. Deweese, 181 U. S. 202 , 21 Sup.

Defendant contends that in any event the result of the trial court’s decision was right, because, if this be not a manufacturing corporation, there are facts entitling defendant to have his stock subscription rescinded, and the corporate records purged of his name as a stockholder, and entitling him to consequent relief from stockholder’s liability, citing Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , .

Bartlett v. Stephens, 137 Minn. 213 , .