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 , .

Plaintiff cites Dunn v. State Bank of Minneapolis, 59 Minn. 221 , ; but the distinction is that the officer there was selling his own stock, and further the action was in equity by the vendee *416 to rescind, while this is an action by plaintiff to enforce a contract, towit, the note obtained in the transaction by the fraudulent practices of the payee.

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 , .

Dunn v. State Bank of Minneapolis, 59 Minn. 221 , .

See to the same effect Dunn v. State Bank of Minneapolis, 59 Minn. 221 , ; Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277 , .

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.

When a corporation becomes insolvent, the rights of creditors become vested (Dunn v. State Bank of Minneapolis, 59 Minn. 221 , ), and those who have permitted themselves to continue in that relation cannot directly or indirectly release themselves or discharge their liability as such by means of agreements with one another or with the corporation.

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.

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

It must be apparent, from this statement of facts, that this case, in a.ll its legal aspects, is fully covered by the decision in Dunn v. State Bank, 59 Minn. 221 , , which was an action brought by a holder of some of this increased stock to have it canceled, and adjudged null and void, on the same grounds which are here urged *274 by way of defense.