HAMILTON ». OHODTBATJ. 341 �oonfessed by demarrer, said receivers are the proper parties to receive whatever may be due by defendants, so that the same may be distributed pro rata among the ereditora. Un- doubtedly, if such a fraudaient scheme existed, as is charged, whereby the parties defendant, for their own private gain, caused the plaintiff and other policy holders to be defrauded of their lawful demands, said defendants should, in a proper proceeding, be compelled to refund for the common benefit. It must be observed, however, that the bUl, even in that view, is fatally defeetive, except on one hypothesis, imper- feetly presented. The defendants, it is charged, were respect- ively stockholders in the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company. Eaeh held a different number of shares. It nowhere appears that said stock was not fully paid up, and consequently that the stockholders were liable for the debts of the Company. It is alleged, however, that ail the assets of said Company were, with their connivance, etc., transferred to the Mound Matual Company, of whose shares of stock they were to receive a like number to those held. in the St. Louis Mutual, subject to be paid off at par by the Mound Mutual; that those shares were so paid off, and the defend- ants became the respective beneficiaries thereof ; and that the only and main source of payment was from the St. Louis Mutual. Practically, the insolvent St. Louis Mutual, through the fraud charged, secured to these conniving stockholders fui! pay at par for their worthless stock out of the asseta which should have been devoted to the payment of its debts. It is not doubted that under • sufficient averments in a proper state of such a case equity would lay its hands upon funds thus fraudulently acquired, and apply them for the benefit of honest creditors. But it is averred that the St. Louis Mutual is now, and has been for years, in the hands of a competent receiver, who is proceeding to oollect and admin- ister its assets for the benefit of ail creditors. Why, then, should this court (the receiver being no party) undertake to collect and administer a fragment of the assets? Will a chancery court split assets and demands to the estent of upholding as many suits as there may be creditors or items ��� �
