Cited by

*Page 130 In Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , the court referred to the limitation in art. 10, § 1, limiting the terms as used in the article so as to "except such as embrace banking privileges"; and it suggested that if it could be held to include incorporated banks not of issue, still the legislature might impose a greater liability than that fixed by th

Co. 64 Minn. 386 , ; Allen *289 v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 ; Farmers L. & T. Co. v. Minneapolis E. & M. Works, 35 Minn. 543 , ; Spooner v. Bay St.

*89 Since the decision was handed down in the case of Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , the law applicable to the enforcement of this liability has been in harmony with the general equitable principles governing the sequestration and distribution of trust funds.

The case of Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , was one to enforce a statutory liability, and necessarily the remedy prescribed by the statute for its enforcement was exclusive.

Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543, 548 .

Inequitable as such a conclusion would be, still it must be admitted that there are expressions in the opinion in the case of Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , relied upon by the defendant, which, if *460 taken literally, ánd without reference to the actual point decided by the court, justify the contention.

Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 ; International Trust Co. v. American Loan & Trust Co., 62 Minn. 501 , .

Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 .

The claim that it is unconstitutional for the legislature to impose this statutory liability on the stockholders of banks not of issue has been fully disposed of in Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543, 551 .

In the case of Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , it was held that the-stockholders’ liability was for the equal benefit of all creditors, and all had an equal right to enforce it, and that G-.

Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 .

Though not thus stated, this rule is applied in Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 ; Johnson v. Fischer, 30 Minn. 173 , ; McKusick v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 48 Minn. 158 , ..

The remedy for enforcing such double liability of stockholders is that provided by G. S. 1894, c. 76, §§ 5889-5911, and it is the exclusive remedy, Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 ; Johnson v. Fischer, 30 Minn. 173 , ; McKusick v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 48 Minn. 158 , .

The reasoning in Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , is entirely applicable to the present case.

327 ;) Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 ; State v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg.

The first section of the new chapter declares that "this chapter embraces all corporations, including in such designation all associations having any corporate rights, whether created by special acts or under general laws.” As long ago as Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543, 555 , it was said that “this chapter applies to all corporations and associations having any corporate rights,” from which it is evident that the court construed the first section as making applicable to all corporations all the pr

Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 ; Johnson v. Fischer, 30 Minn. 173 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.

In Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , which was an action by a creditor of an insolvent bank against a stockholder to enforce his individual liability under the banking law, it was held that the exclusive remedy was under chapter 76.

This was so held in Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , and Johnson v. Fischer, 30 Minn. 173 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.

City of Faribault v. Misener, 20 Minn. 347 , (396;) Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 ; Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 126, 129 , ( 19 N. W. Rep.

In Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , the corporation was an insolvent bank.

This statute was construed in Allen v. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543 , as prescribing an action in the nature of an equitable suit, in which all persons interested in the subject of the action should be joined or properly represented.