Handley v. Stutz (137 U.S. 366)/Opinion of the Court

by Horace Gray

United States Supreme Court

137 U.S. 366

Handley  v.  Stutz

This is a bill in equity by some, in behalf of all, of the creditors of a corporation against the corporation and holders of stock therein. The bill is not founded upon any direct liability of the stockholders to the plaintiffs, but upon the theory that, the corporation being insolvent, and having no other assets, the sums due to it from the stockholders on their unpaid subscriptions to stock ought to be paid by them to the corporation as a trust fund to be distributed among the plaintiffs and all other creditors of the corporation, so far as required to satisfy their just claims, and that, the corporation having neglected to collect these sums, or to administer the trust, and the plaintiffs and defendants being citizens of different states, the circuit court, sitting in equity, should compel those sums to be paid in by the stockholders, to be administered as a trust fund, and to de distributed among all creditors who should come in. Such a bill can only be maintained by one or more creditors in behalf half of all, and not by any one creditor to secure payment of his own debt to the exclusion of others. Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610, 622; Patterson v. Lynde, 106 U.S. 519, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 432; Johnoson v. Waters, 111 U.S. 640, 674, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 619. In Hatch v. Dana, 101 U.S. 205, the bill of a single creditor, which was sustained by the court, was brought in behalf of himself, and all other creditors of the corporation who should come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit. No other creditors came in, and it did not appear that there were any others.

Each of the appellants has been charged by the decree below with a sum of more than $5,000; and it is undisputed that each of them, if the others should prove insolvent, would be obliged to pay the whole sum charged against him, and that each, therefore, has more than $5,000 at stake. The contest in upon the sufficiency in amount of the creditors' claims to support the jurisdiction of the circuit court in the first instance, and of this court on appeal, within the meaning of the statutes limiting the jurisdiction of each court to cases in which the sum in dispute exceeds $2,000 and $5,000, respectively. Acts Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, (25 St. 434;) Feb. 16, 1875, c. 77, § 3, (18 St. 316.) The sums alleged to be due from the corporation to the original plaintiffs amounting to more than $2,000, the circuit court had jurisdiction of the case, and authority to administer and distribute the amounts due from the individual defendants to the corporation for unpaid subscriptions to stock, as a trust fund for the benefit of all the creditors of the corporation, and for that purpose to permit creditors who had not originally joined in the bill to come in and prove their claims before a master. Johnson v. Waters, above cited. The trust fund so administered and ordered to be distibuted by the circuit court amounting to much more than $5,000, the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not affected by the fact that the amounts decreed to some of the creditors are less than that sum. It was immaterial to the appellants how the sums decreed to be paid by them should be distributed, and (which is more decisive) such a bill as this could not have been filed by one creditor in his own behalf only, and the case does not fall under that class in which creditors who might have sued severally join in one bill for convenience nd to save expense. This court, therefore, has jurisdiction of the whole appeal, according to the rule affirmed in Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27, 7 Sup Ct. Rep. 1066, and the cases there collected. Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, and jurisdiction of the circuit court sustained.

Notes