The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Smith et al.
Judgment, upon finding of issues, conclusive between parties — Facts involved cannot be contested or re-tried in proceeding to carry judgment into execution — Action to enforce stockholder's liability.
1. A judgment rendered upon a finding of the issues in an action is conclusive, as between the parties, upon all the material facts involved, and they cannot be contested in any subsequent proceeding in the same action, so long as the judgment remains in force.
2. Where, in an action to enforce the statutory liability of the stockholders of a corporation, the petition contains appropriate allegations of the amount and nature of the claims of the plaintiffs, the insolvency of the corporation, and the ownership of the stock by the defendants with the number of shares Owned by them respectively, and on the trial there has been a finding that the allegations are true, and the issues for the plaintiff, followed by judgment that defendants pay the creditors the amount found due them as may be apportioned among such of the defendants as are solvent, the judgment, until reversed or vacated by proper authority, is a final determination of the validity of the plaintiff’s claims, the insolvency of the corporation, the ownership of the stock and the number of shares held by each owner, that the action was not barred, and that the proper parties were before the court.
3. Appropriate proceedings thereafter, in carrying the judgment into execution, do not include a re-trial of, or inquiry into any question of fact involved m it, but relate to the apportionment of the liability among the solvent stockholders according to their respective ownerships as determined by the judgment; and a valid assessment cannot be made against a stockholder on any greater number of shares.
(Decided May 26, 1896.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.
Action was brought in the court of common pleas of Licking county, on the 22d day of December, 1881, by James H. Smith, in behalf of himself and all other creditors of the Newark, Somerset & *563Straitsville Railroad Company, against the stockholders of that company to enforce their statutory liability.
An amended petition was filed December 18,1882, in which, after alleging that the corporation was one organized under the laws of this state, and had becpme insolvent, the names of its stockholders are set forth with the number of shares owned by each, and among them are Drexel, Morgan & Co., and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad company ; the former is alleged to be the owner of 13,450 shares, and the latter of “4,002, or more, of which 3,500 were issued to it as preferred stock. ” It is further averred: “ That each of said shares is of the nominal amount of fifty dollars, and said defendants, together with the said plaintiffs, are by law liable to contribute pro rata to their respective shares, such sums of money as may be sufficient to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff and other creditors of said corporation, not exceeding the amount of their respective shares, and the costs incident to the enforcement thereof.” And the petition prays, “that the court will order, adjudge and decree that an account shall be taken of the amount which is or may become due the plaintiff and such other creditors of said corporation as may appear and prove their claims, together with the costs that may accrue in this case; that the same be referred to a master commissioner to ascertain the proportion necessary to be paid by each of said stockholders who may be responsible and may be brought before the court ; and that a decree may be made against each of such stockholders for such sum as may be found by such master properly chargeable against them respectively.”
*564William D. Hamilton was, on his motion, made a party plaintiff, and set up in a pleading stjded a petition, certain indebtedness due him from the insolvent corporation, and prayed judgment “against the said stockholders of the said The Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company for the amount due him as aforesaid, to be assessed on each, ratably according to the amount of the stock held or owned by each, and that if any are found to be insolvent or out of this state, that the same be assessed upon the solvent resident stockholders ratably as aforesaid. ’ ’
Drexel, Morgan & Co. were not served with process or otherwise brought into court, though it is not claimed they were insolvent, nor, is any reason shown why they were not brought in. The .Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company answered, setting up several defenses, which need not be particularly noticed here; the pleadings are quite voluminous.
After the issues were made' up and the cause tried in the court of common pleas, it was taken on appeal to the circuit court, where it was tried at the October term, 1887. That court made an extensive finding of facts aud rendered the follow- ' ing judgment:
“ And this court now finds the equity of the case in favor of the said James H. Smith and the said William D. Hamilton, plaintiffs herein, and as between them and all of said defendants the court finds the facts stated in their respective petitions and replies to be true, and that the facts contrary thereto, stated in the answers and cross petitions of the said Newark, Somerset & Straits-ville Railroad Company and Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and said J. B. Jones, defend*565ants, are not true ; and the court, on full consideration of the premises, now orders, and adjudges and decrees that the solyent stockholders of said Newark, Somerset and Straitsville Railroad Company shall pay to said plaintiff, James H. Smith, the said sums of money hereinbefore found due to him amounting in the aggregate on the first day of the present term of this court, to-wit : October 11, 1887, to the sum of one hundred and twenty-six thousand and four and 37-100 ($126,004.37) dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent, per annum till paid, as may hereafter be apportioned among such of those defendants in this case as are solvent. And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said stockholders shall pay to the said William D. Hamilton the said moneys hereinbefore found due to him, amounting on the first day of this term to the sum of twenty-three thousand one hundred and seventy-eight ($23,17(8.00) dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent, per annum, in like manner as the same may hereafter be apportioned among such of them defendants in this case as are solvent. And it is further ordered that the costs of this case shall be paid by said defendant stockholders inlikemanner to be apportioned. And it is further ordered that this case shall be and is remanded to the court of common pleas for such further proceedings as the nature of the case may require.”
Error was prosecuted from that judgment to this court, where it was affirmed. The case is reported in 48 Ohio St., 218. Afterwards the cause was again taken to the circuit court on appeal from certain proceedings had in the court of common pleas, and on the 23d day of December, 1893, by leave, of the circuit court, the plaintiff filed an *566amendment to his amended petition, in which it was alleged, in substance, that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company was the owner of the stock which, in the original and amended petitions it was alleged belonged to Drexel, Morgan & Co.; and the amendment asked that the liability thereon be assessed against that railroad company. To that amendment the railroad company pleaded the former judgment of the circuit court in bar. The reply thereto was in the nature of a demurrer. At its October term, 1894, the circuit court made and entered on its record a finding to the effect that, at the commencement of the action, the Drexel, Morgan & Co. stock belonged to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, which, added to its other stock made it the owner of 17,801 shares of stock of the insolvent corporation, upon which number of shares, so determined, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company was held liable to be assessed for the payment of the creditors of the insolvent corporation, and judgment was rendered against it accordingly.
Various other findings were made and judgments rendered, which we do not deem it necessary to further refer to here. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company excepted to the finding’ and judgment against it, and prosecutes error here to obtain a reversal. Any further facts that may be considered material in the decision of the ease, will be stated in the opinion.
J. II. Collins, for plaintiff in error.
The decree is an interlocutory one, and the rule is that such decrees are under the control of the court so long as the cause is pending. Interlocutory decree defined, Trapp v. Hewett, 1 Ohio *567St. R., 512-520. Fournique v. Perkins, 16 How., 85; American Diamond Drill Co. v. Sullivan Machine Co., 21 Fed. Rep., 74. Steam Stone Cutter Co. v. Sheldon, 21 Fed. Rep., 875 Wooster v. Handy, 21 Fed. Rep., 51; Henry v. Travelers Ins. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 258. Kelley v. Stanberry 13 Ohio, 408; Jaques v. Methodist Episcopal Church, 17 Johns. Rep., 548; 48 Ohio St., 219.
This being an interlocutory decree, it is under control of the court until the final decree is made.
The decree is void as to those not served,. voidable as to those who were, the liability being joint, under section 3260, and the judgment being joint against all the stockholders. Douglas v. Dunlap, 16 Ohio, 271; Newburg v. Munshower, 29 Ohio St., 617.
It was the duty of the plaintiff before proceeding in this case to have had all the stockholders of the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville, Railroad Company in court. Church v. Nelson, 35 Ohio St., 638:
Section 3260 directs who must be parties to a suit of this character ; Lamar v. Stephens, 27 W. L. B., 301; Railroad Co. v. City of Detroit, 64 Fed, Rep., 646; Nuth v. Tamplin, 8 L. R. Q., B. Div. 253; Sutherland Stat. Con. section 238. Impracticability of getting all parties before the court does not affect the question. Cattle Co. v. Frank, 158 U. S., 603.
This defect of parties was not waived. Church v. Nelson, 35 Ohio St., 642.
This dismissal is authorized by section 5313 of the Revised Statutes, and it is respectfully submitted that the word “may” in this section means the same as “must.”
“Majq” in the construction of public statutes, is to be construed must in all cases where the legis*568lature mean to impose a positive and absolute duty, and not merely to give a discretionary power. 1 Peters’ Reports, 46, 64. 3 Hill’s (N. Y.) R., 612, 615. 9 Gratton’s R., 391. The word “may” in a statute, means must or shall, when the public interest or rights are concerned, or the public or third persons, have a claim, de jure, that the power shall be exercised. 1 Vera., 153. 1 Kent’s Com., 467, note 24 Mississippi R., 657.
Mason v. Faerson, 9 How., 248; Rex and Regina v. Barlow, 2 Salkeld, 609; The King v. The Inhabitants of Derby, Skinner, 370; Blackwell’s case, 1 Vernon, 152; 2 Chitty, 251 ; Dwarris on Stat., 712; Newburgh T. Co. v. Miller, 5 Johns, Ch. 113; City of New York v. Furze, 3 Hill, 612; Minor et al. v. The Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet., 64; Malcolm v. Rogers, 5 Cowen, 188; 1 Pet., 64; 5 Johns. Ch. 113; Scully & Dixon v. Ackmeyer, 2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep., 296 p.; Railroad Co. v. Mowatt, 35 Ohio St., 284.
A failure to continue process from term to term against a defendant not served, works a dis.continuance. Pollard v. Huston, 7 Lea(Tenn.), 689; Bissell v. Gold, 1 Wend. (N. Y.), 210; S. C. 19 Am. Dec., 480.
The effect will be the same under the Ohio statutes. Section 4988.
What we have hereinbefore insisted it was the duty of the court to do under the sections of the statute quoted, seems tobe imperative by sections 5007 and 5013. Mahr v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Society, 127 N. Y., 452.
The plaintiff’s cause of action had not accrued at the time of the commencement of this suit, because the N., S. & S. R. R. Co. was, and is, the owner of property subject to execution. The findings of the circuit court, therefore, when consid*569ered together, find that the N., S. & S. R. R. Co. has property subject to execution. The road and franchises subject to this mortgage and lease may be sold on execution. Farmers' Bank of Canton v. Com. Bank,, 10 Ohio, 71; Moor v. Rittenhouse, 15 Ohio St., 310; Morgan v. Lewis, 46 Ohio St. R., 1; Garrick v. Gifford, 47 Ohio St. R., 180; Bronson v. Schneider et al., 49 Ohio St., 438; Younglove v. Lime Co., 49 Ohio St., 663. .
The equity of redemption held by the N., S. & S. R. R. Co., was subject to sale on execution.
Land mortgaged may be sold on judgment and execution against the mortgagor. Farmers’ Bank of Canton v. Commercial Bank of L. E., 10 O., 71.
Until foreclosure, or' possession taken under it, the mortgage remains a chose in action, and the mortgagor the legal owner, as to all the world. A mortgagor in possession has an interest which is bound by a judgment. Miami Ex. Co. v. Bank of United States, W., 249, 251; Morris v. Way 16 Ohio, 469; Lawrence v. Belger, 31 Ohio St., 175.
If the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad company had property subject to execution, then the right of action had not accrued at the time the suit was commenced, and if these answers, or .either of them, furnish a good defense against the stockholders’ liability, they inure to the benefit of all of the Stockholders, whether they have answered or not. Baker v. Jerome, 50 Ohio St. Rep., 682.
Smith and Hamilton were not entitled to have the assessment against the stock standing in the name of Drexel, Morgan & Co., charged to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad company, for the reason that the pleadings in the amended petition and the amendment thereto are inconsistent, and if *570inconsistent, their effect is to annul each other. 29 O. S. R., page 654.
The facts presented by us furnish a complete defense to the enforcement of the stockholders’ liability against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad company in this case — not one defense, but several. 17 A. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1080.
There is no equity in the claim made to enforce the stockholder’s liability against any of the stock owned by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, but, on the contrary, the attempt of Shields, Evans & Co., any of its members, or anyone in privity with them, to enforce this liability against the stock owned by that company is simply infamous. Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 Ohio St., 667.
This arises out of the nature of the property and the relations of the parties to it and to creditors, in connection with the equitable principle that he who derives all the advantages ought to bear the burdens. Sutliff v. Atwood, 15 Ohio St., 186, 194; Johnson v. Underwood, 52 N. Y., 203, 211; Hodkinson v. Kelly, L. R. Eq. C., 6, 486, 503; Cape's Ex’ r’ case 2 De Gex,M. & G., 562; Mexican and S. A. Co., Gieswood & Smith’s Case, 4 De Gex & J., 544, 555; Mason v. Alexander, 44 Ohio St., 318.
The agreement at the time of the settlement of August, 1872, that the notes were payable only out of the earnings of the road subject to payment of preferred stock, was and is binding- on the holders of the notes, although not embodied in the notes themselves, and Smith being a purchaser after maturity stands in nobetter position than the original holders. Brown v. Eastern State Co., 134 Mass., 590; Morawetz on Corps, section 829; Cook on Stock and Stockholders and Corporation Law, section 216.
*571' The double liability may be waived by creditors. Hardman v. The Cincinnati and Eastern R. R. Co., 18 W. L. B., 264; McMurray v. Moran, 134 U. S., 150.
By the terms of the lease, voted for by Shields, Evans & Co., the N., S. & S. R. R. Co. was prohibited from making the notes here sued upon, and the holders had knowledge of and were bound by the terms of this contract contained in the lease. Ingle v. Norrington, 126 Indiana.
There is another principle of influential importance here, and that is this: Where parties have by their acts given a construction to a contract entered into by them the courts,will adopt and enforce that construction. Vinton v. Baldwin, 95 Ind., 433; Ætna Life Insurance Co. Nexsen, 84 Ind., 346, and cases cited. Reissner v. Oxley, 80 Ind., 580; Johnson v. Gibson, 78 Ind., 282, and authorities cited.
The conduct of the parties warranted the inference that they had by their conduct construed the contract in accordance with the appellee’s theory, and this justified the finding of the trial court. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Collingwood, 71 Ind., 476. Gaines v. Union Transportation Co., 28 O. S. R., 440.
In the case at bar there was an express contract which included an agreement on the part of Shields, Evans & Co. not to enforce this stockholders’ liability against the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. There was, therefore, no implied undertaking by that company to indemnify Shields, Evans & Co. against this liability. Broom’s Legal Maxims, 785.
Under the provisions of section 4993 and section 5077 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, the claim which the firm of Shields, Evans & Co. and its members held against the stockholders of the Newark, Som*572erset & Straitsville Railroad Company should be deemed compensated, as of the date when that firm and its members occupied the position of both creditor and stockholder. Wyman v. Robbins, 51 Ohio St., 98; King v. Armstrong, 50 Ohio St., 222.
The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company is also a creditor, as shown by the notes executed to it by the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Co. and which have been introduced in evidence.
As between the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and the Newark, Somerset and Straitsville Railroad Company the notes are not onlyprima facie evidence of anindebtedness, but are conclusive until impeached for fraud or mistake, or something’ similar. ’ Bryant v. Sweetland, 48 Ohio St. Rep., 209.
Finally, we contend that a stockholder can only question the validity of the notes executed by the Newark, Somerset and Straitsville Railroad Company to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company after he has asked the corporation to act. Morawetz on Corporations, sections 240, 241; Cook on Stockholders, section 646.
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company is not liable upon the stock standing in the name of Drexel, Morgan & Co.
The charter of that company has been introduced in evidence. By sections twelve and fourteen the officers of the company, and their powers and duties; are to be fixed by the president and directors, or a majority of them. The .powers and authority of the corporation are also fixed within certain specific limits. Prom this it follows that there is not liability for several reasons.
First — It has not been shown that the acts of any of the officers or agents which the plaintiff has attempted to prove were in the scope of their authority.
*573It is a well settled principle that before either the acts or the declarations of an agent can be offered in evidence, that it must be shown that such acts, or declarations are within the scope of authority of such officer or agent. Greenleaf on Evidence, sections 13, 14 and 14a. Vicksburg & Meriden R. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S., 99; Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall, 540; Story on Agency, section 134.
Second — There has been no consent (so far as this record shows) of the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., through its board of directors or president, to become a stockholder in the N., S. & S. R. R. Co.
Neither a person nor corporation can become a stockholder in a corporation except by his or its consent. Morawetz on Corporations, Chap. 2, sections 44-62; Glenn v. Gorth, 133 N. Y. Rep., 18. No consent of the B. & O. R. R. Co. to become the owner of or the assignee of the Drexel, Morgan & Co. stock is'shown. The expunged transfer instead of so showing, proves directly the contrary.
Besides, this canceled transfer is not shown to be by any one authorized by the B. & O. R. R. Co. either to make it or cancel it. It was- made and signed by John King, Jr., in his personal character only, and can in no possible manner bind the B. & O. Co. Officers of a corporation, from the highest to the lowest, are agents only, and can bind it only by acts and contracts within the scope of their authority. 34 Am. St. R., 528.
A corporation can not empower an agent to do an act in excess of the powers of the corporation conferred by its charter. 34 Am. St. R., 815 ; Oliver v. Moor, 23 O. S. R., 473; 48 O. S. R., 294, supra.
*574Thwd — Even if it be shown satisfactorily to the court that the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. did subscribe for or purchase this stock, the act was idtra vwes. Beech on Corporations, sections 393 and 394; Railway Co. v. Iron Co., 46 O. S. R., 44; Morgan v. Lewis, 46 O. S. R., 1; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y., 69; State v. Vanderbilt, 37 Ohio St., 590; Humbolt Mining Co. v. American Manufacturing Co., 62 Fed. Rep., 356. This case is directly in point and reviews all the Ohio cases. Railroad Co. v. Oregonian Railroad Co., 130 U. S. S. C., 1.
'J. B. Foraker, for plaintiff in error.
1. The judgment below should be reversed because: 1. The former j udgment (that which was affirmed in 48th Ohio State) was either final or interlocutory. It was treated as both.
2. If final, nothing could be done below except only to execute it. It was error, therefore, if final, to make new parties either of defendant stockholders or co-plaintiff creditors.
It was also error, if final, to change the issue as to the stock held by Drexel, Morgan & Co.
These errors were prejudicial because: (1) without new parties the case could not proceed; and (2) if the judgment had stood as final that Drexel, Morgan & Co. owned the stock standing in their name, then Shields, Evans & Co., as the assignors of that stock, would have been liable to assessment upon it, they being in court and Drexel, Morgan & Co. beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
The claim of W. D. Hamilton would, in that event, have been cancelled by his obligation as a member of the firm of Shields, Evans ds Co. to pay the assessment on this stock.
*575The claim of Smith would have been cancelled because he took his notes after maturity and, therefore, with full notice of all equities. As a result the obligation of Shields, Evans & Co. to pay the assessment on this stock would apply to him because he, so taking his notes, stood in their shoes.
II. When the court below, as to these matters, treated the former judgment as interlocutory and allowed the change of issue as to the Drexel, Morgan & Co. stock to be made, it opened up the whole case. It was competent, therefore, for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad company, in defending against this new claim, to raise all defenses it might have. It did then make and establish as a new defense, under the general issue, want of corporate power. The court below expressly so found.
We claim, with respect to this question, that it was the duty of the plaintiff below, when he showed ‘the stock was held by a corporation, to go further and affirmatively show that the corporation had the corporate power so to hold it. But, however, this may be, the charter of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company is in evidence, and we call attention to it as showing, not only want of corporate power as found by the court below, but also want of authority and power in the officials of the company, even its board of directors, to purchase and hold the stock on which it is sought to hold this company liable to the assessment in this action. The powers of these respective officials are defined in the charter and it shows no such power in any of them. But the rule is that a corporation acts by its board of directors and only by its board. There is no attempt to show that the board of directors of the *576Baltimore and Ohio Company ever authorized anything with respect to this Drexel, Morgan & Co. stock.
There was not sufficient testimony, therefore, to support the conclusion that the stock was held in trust for the B. & O. Company.
But, if there had been, it was error to assess the B. & O. Company on the stock in the name of Drexel, Morgan & Co., because the court will not look beyond the legal holder of stock to assess the beneficial owner, except only where the stock has been put out of the name of the real owner, for some fraudulent or improper purpose. It was so held in the case of Henkle v. The Salem Manufacturing Co., 39 Ohio State, 547.
There is no pretense of evidence or claim that there was any fraudulent purposb on the part of anybody in connection with the placing of this stock in the name of Drexel, Morgan & Co.
It was error to assess the B. & O. Company on this stock, in the second place, because, not having this stock in the name of the B. & O. Company, it never held itself out as owner to creditors, and never induced credit on that account, and, therefore, never misled anybody. In Harpold’s case, 46 Ohio State, 397, it was held that Harpoid should be assessed on the stock there in controversy, although he had sold it and asked that it be transferred, and had done all that was incumbent on him to have it transferred, on the ground, that remaining in his name, he was thereby held out to creditors as the owner of the stock, and they had a right to assume that he was the stockholder and liable to assessment.
The change of issue as to this stock opened up the case also, if it were not already open, for the *577question as to the solvency or insolvency of. the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company. We are told that this question was settled by the former judgment. We do not think so. The record shows that no such question was presented to or passed upon by this court in the case reported in the 48th Ohio State. We understand the rule to be as announced by this court in the Pugh case, 43d Ohio State, page 121; that the court is bound by only such questions as are presented to it, considered by it and passed upon by it, and that it is not bound by a question that only “lurks in the record.” The question of the insolvency of the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company was not presented to, considered by or passed upon by this court. But, if it had been, the B. & O. Company.had a right to make that' defense when it was sought, after the case had been sent down from this court, to change the issue and increase its liabiity,' and it did make that defense, and the record" shows that it established that defense. The general finding of insolvency in special finding is cancelled by the specific findings of fact made at the same time, which show that the road was still in operation; that it had not been placed in the hands of a receiver or assignee, but was a going concern, with a la/rg& rental and a valuable equity' of redemption. There is nothing to controvert any of these facts. There was no excuse, therefore, for the bringing of this action against stockholders before judgment recovered and execution returned nulla bona.
But, if it was insolvent when this suit was brought in December, 1881, it had been equally insolvent for more than six years prior thereto, as shown by the record. .For the record discloses' *578that from and after the execution of the lease to the B, & O. Company, January 1st, 1872, down to the time of the bringing of this suit in 1881, there was no change whatever in the debt of this company, except only by the execution of the notes sued upon in this case which are not, for reasons to be given, to be considered in determining the question of insolvency. On the contrary, the road was constantly improving and developing and becoming more valuable. In other words, it was more insolvent when these notes were executed in December, 1872, than it was when the petition was filed in December, 1881. The right of creditors to enforce the stockholders’ liability was, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations.
III. The only question decided by this court in 48 Ohio State, pertinent to the present inquiry was that the equities between assignor and assignee stockholders should be adjusted in the final judgment. That holding had reference to the fact, among others, that Shields,. Evans & Co. were assignors of the stock on which it is now sought to assess the B. & O. Company. These equities were not adjusted by the court below as required by law, because: (1) The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company purchased its stock with the distinct understanding and agreement, as set forth in the lease and in the letters and telegrams that passed between the companies, that there was not and should not be created any floating debt of the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company. Shields, Evans & Co., the assignors of this stock, were parties to that agreement, and they got the full benefit of the results of the agreement; (2) in view of these stipulations and *579agreements it was expressly agreed when these notes were executed that they should be paid only out of the earnings of the road under the lease, and subject to the redemption of the preferred stock. (3) The issuing of the notes in view of all this, was a fraud on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. (4) Smith, the plaintiff, bought after maturity and, therefore, with full notice, while Hamilton, a member of the firm of Shields, Evans & Co., and a director of the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company, had full notice from the beginning.
In adjusting equities, the court below should, in view of all this, have held that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company took this stock from Shields, Evans & Co., under such circumstances as to preclude any implied undertaking to pay, on account of its statutory liability, the notes which had been so issued to Shields, Evans & Co. The exact opposite was the truth in so far as the circumstances make the agreement with respect to the matter namely: That there should be no liability to pay any debt previously contracted to Shields, Evans & Co., or anybody else — the agreement being that there should not be any such debt.
IV. The neglect and omission of plaintiff to make all solvent stockholders parties was fatal, and the petition should have been dismissed on that account. The statutory provision on the subject of stockholders’ liability'provides that all the stockholders shall' be jointly liable in an action where all are sued. It is prejudicial error to a stockholder of a corporation to omit any solvent stockholder in a suit brought to enforce the stockholders’ liability, although the assessment of those who are brought into court may be propor*580tionately reduced on account of the omission to sue those who are not parties, because the debt, to the extent it is not satisfied, remains over against the corporation, and the stockholder who is assessed may be again made to suffer by the taking of the corporation’s property. It is not a sufficient answer, therefore, whore solvent stockholders are omitted, to say eith r that only a few were omitted or that those who were sued were assessed less on that account.
V. The common ownership, at the time of the execution of these notes, of both the notes sued upon and the stock now s ught to be assessed, cancels the one the other. The liability of stock to assessment attaches at the moment the debt of the corporation is created. When, therefore, these notes were given in December, 1872, the liability of the stockholders to be assessed under their statutory liability, then and there attached.
The stock was then held by Shields, Evans & Co. The notes were also held by Shields, Evans & Co. Had suit then been brought — and the company was as insolvent then as it was in 1881 — it would have been sued by Shields, Evans & Co., to collect their notes by an assessment upon themselves on account of the stock which they held. It was not competent for this cancellation to be avoided by selling the notes in one direction and the stock in another. In adjusting the equities between assignor and assignee, the court below completely ignored these facts.
VI. There is no equity in favor of either Smith or Hamilton, and never was.
Hamilton was a member of the firm of Shields, Evans & Co., and a director of the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company. He not *581only had full knowledge of all the agreements and stipulations, but was an active party in making them. He knew that these notes were not payable except only out of the earnings of the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railiroad Company; he knew the making of them was in violation of the stipulations of the lease and the other agreements referred do that there should be no floating debt created. Recognizing these facts he never sought to collect the same or to make any claim on account of them until after this suit was brought.
As to Smith, he is in a much worse attitude. He is a mere speculative litigant. He not only had full knowledge of all these facts attending the creation of this indebtedness and the execution of these notes and the agreement that they should be paid only out of the earnings and that there should be no floating debt, but he also knew that except only as to this paper, there had been no change in the indebtedness of the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company from the time when the paper was made down to the time when he bought it, and he knew, therefore, that the company was no more insolvent at the one time than it had been at the other. He knew necessarily when he bought the paper that it was past due. Aside, therefore, from the actual knowledge he had, he was “on notice” and took subject to all equities. Knowing all these facts, both actually and constructively, he • sought to buy up this dishonored paper. The record shows he paid $14, 000 for $65,000, principal and interest; and there is something else to which we call especial attention, and that is, that he did not buy this dishonored paper, at about twenty cents on the dollar, until after he himself had sold to the Baltimore *582c& Ohio Railroad from $115,000 to $150,000 oj the stock of the Newcvrk, Somerset <& Straitsville Rgil/i'o'od Company. In other words he did not buy up this paper until the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company had, from his own sale, acquired, as he thought, a solvent stockholder whom he might be able to squeeze into the payment of his claim. Accordingly we find him, immediately after he acquired this paper, asking, not the maker of it, the Newark, Somerset & Straitsville Railroad Company, to pay it, or to make some arrangement about it, but asking the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, through Mr. Quincy, a general manager, who had nothing whatever to do with the subject, whether or not it would take up the paper, or whether it wanted to do anything about the paper, and 9, little bit later we find him telling the private secretary of Mr. Quincy that he would take $50,000 for his notes; or in other words, that he would throw off the interest. Payment being refused, he next brought suit and now asks the courts to require the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company to pay in the settlement of his claim and Hamilton’s more than $300,000, to which large amount the claims have grown.
It would be difficult to think of a case more unconscionable, as in violation of good faith and positive agreements, or a standing more objectionable, because of the speculative character of the complainant, or a judgment that should more certainly be reversed because of manifest errors.
J. Buckingham, George B. Smythe and J. D. Jones, for defendants in error.
The question is, what office does the judgment of the circuit court of 1887, and the facts found *583then by the court, perforin in the course of this litigation. Counsel for plaintiff in error claims that it counts for nothing, that it was mere byplajr, and that the B. & O. R. R. Co. can, as matter of right, have all the matters then heard and determined, reheard, and set aside as of no potency whatever.
If it was final, the judgment settled all matters expressly in dispute, and just as well, all matters admitted or not disputed; also all matters of defense, which the B. & O. Co. as- stockholder did plead, but also all matters of defense, which the company might have pleaded. The judgment settled all those matters pleaded or which might have been pleaded, not only for that hearing, but, between the same parties, for all time and under all circumstances. Grant v. Ramsey, 7 O. S., 158, First Syl., 162; Hites v. Irvine's Adm'r, 13 O. S., 283, Syl.; Ewing v. McNairy & Clafflin, 20 O. S., 315, 1st Syl.; The C. & G. Bridge Co. v. Sargent, 27, O. S., 233, 1st Syl.
This principle is fully sustained,, where it is sought, to re-litigate in different actions, and even where one is ex contractu and the other is ex delicto. Hixon v. Ogg, 53 Ohio St., 361.
But, suppose the decree was interlocutory only, the result would not be different. The B. & O. Company is estopped from questioning either the jurisdiction of the court, or the efficacy of the judgment. Herman on Estoppel and Res Adjudicata, sections 823, 824; Buckley v. Stephens; 29 O. S.,620, 624; Ohio Life and Trust Co. v. Goodin, 10 O. S., 557; Cairnes v. Knight, 17 O. S,, 69, 71.
In a case, proper for second trial, parties appealed to district court and went to trial there, without objection, held: District court had juris*584diction, and appellant could not object, on error. Potter, Receiver, v. Bunnel, 20 O. S., 150, 151.
After appeal to supreme court, and decree rendered therein, it is too late to object on bill of review, to regularity of the appeal. Brown v. Haines et al., 12 O., 1 to 9 ; Elliot on Appellate Procedure, section 578.
This rule governs the case, in the same court, and in the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings. Wells on Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis, section 613. Herman on Estoppel, etc., 115; Sibbald v. U. S., 12 Peters, 448; Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. (U..S.,) 467, 481; Stacy v. Vermont R. R. Co., 32 Vt., 552; Phelan v. San Francisco, 20 Cal., 39; Northern P. R. R. Co. v. Ellis, 144 U. S., 458.
This question, as to whether the supreme court of this state can change its judgment upon a second petition in error, and whether its judgment is-“the law of the case,” in the subsequent proceedings, does not seem to have been before the court in any reported case. But it has been held in the following cases, that no rehearing of judgments in error,, in the supreme‘cou^t, can be allowed, and that the judgments are final. Longworth et al. v. Sturgis, 2 O. S., 105, 106; Zink v. Grant, 26 O. S., 378; Maud et al. v. Maud, 34 O. S., 540; Atcherly v. Dickenson, 34 O. S., 537; Corry v. Campbell, 34 O. S., 205; Railroad Co. v. Belt, 36 O. S., 93.
The matters which became res adjudicata, by the judgment of the circuit court of 1887 (the said judgment not having been changed or modified), and binding on the parties, thereafter, we claim to be.as follows:
. T. That the notes owned by Smith and Hamilton, were valid claims against the N., S. & S. R. R. Co., *585and as such, enforcible' against the defendants— • stockholders of that .company, in proportion to their stock.
2. That the N., S. & S. R. R. Co. was insolvent in that sense, which supports a judgment against its stockholders, for its debts.
3. That the allegations of the amended petition, and the facts found by the court, justified the judgment that the stockholders should pay, without any judgment being first obtained on the notes by plaintiff and Hamilton.
4. That it was not agreed by the payees of the notes, held by plaintiff (below) and Hamilton, that they should be paid only out of the earnings of the railroad, or upon any condition, which precluded a judgment against the N., S. & S. Co. or its stockholders for payment of the amounts due on them.
5. 'That the B. & O. Co. was a stockholder, and the owner of 4002 or more shares of the stock of the N., S. & S. R. R. Co. and that it was liable to the plaintiff and Hamilton, for its proportionate amount.
6. All the facts, which were found by the court, and that they were sustained by sufficient evidence.
There has been no controversey over any of the claims settled by the, subsequent proceedings, except that made by the B. & O. R. R. Co.
We think it is clear, that, after an action by creditors of an insolvent corporation, has been commenced, against the stockholders, to enforce the statutory liability, the directors of the insolvent company cannot as against the creditors, create any new liability, or by acknowledgment or settlement, affect existing obligations, and the individual liability of stockholders cannot be affected by such acts. And this applies to indorse*586ments and guarantees of debts assigned to creditors to pay or secure them. Richmond v. Irons 1 21 U. S., 27., see 4 O. S., 21, 32, top; see 111 U. S., 787; Brown v. Hitchcock; 36 Ohio St., 687.
Where no dividends are earned, none are due. Miller v. Ratterman, 47 Ohio St., 142.
A creditor can object to the allowance of a claim, by another creditor, cause being shown why it should not be allowed; Hardman v. C. & E., 18 Bul., 264; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S., 27; Daniels on Ch. Pls., 1408.
As to the meaning of “redeem,” see Miller v. Ratterman, 47 O. S., 156.
We come now to the second matter, which the court did, in the progress of the fwther proceedings for which the case was remanded. It ascertained the number of shares of stock held by each solvent stockholder, party to the action.
We claim that this question of the judgment of 1887, being void or voidable does not arise, because the judgment was against stockholders, defendants, and no one who was brought in afterwards is complaining, and the B. & O. Co. who was a party, cannot complain.
As to it the judgment was or is not voidable:
1. Because the judgment was affirmed in this court.
2. Because the liability is not joint but several, and a several judgment only, can be rendered in the case. Wright v. McCormack, 17 O. S., 96, last par. but one; Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 O. S.; 113, 2 Syl.; Mason v. Alexander, 44 O. S., 333, middle.
Another objection is, that no judgment can be rendered until all the stockholders are made parties to the suit.
*587This was not the law before the passage of section 3260, R. S. Before that, the suit was to be prosecuted on behalf of all the creditors and against all. the solvent stockholders. Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 O. S., 113, 3 Syl. and page 118; Wheeler v. Faurot, 37 O. S., 26; Wright v. McCormack, 17 O. S., 86.
But being the law of the remedy, all the solvent stockholders, meant those within the jurisdiction. Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 O. S., 667, 4 Syl; Mason v. Alexander, 44 O. S., 319, 5 Syl. 2. Beach on Cor., section 700, 2; Morawetz on Cor., section 902, 2 par.
It is claimed that section 3260, requires all the stockholders to be parties, before any. judgment can be rendered, and that any judgment rendered, is erroneous, unless this requirement is complied with.
We claim that no such construction ought to be given to the section.
The error, alleged in rendering the judgment, without the presence of all, was not prejudicial to the B. & O. Co., and under the circumstances, the company ought not to be permitted to make the objection.
We think, that the company after all this, must be held to be satisfied with the parties as they stood before the court, and cannot be heard to demand that the case be dismissed, because the statutes of limitations ran in favor of those not served.
This conduct waived the objection, at least so far as error is concerned.
Another objection is, that the plaintiffs’ cause of action had not accrued at the time of the commencement of the suit, on two grounds :
*588First — That the N., S. & S. Co. was not insolvent, in the sense of supporting an action to enforce-this liability against the stockholders.
Second — That the plaintiffs had not recovered judgment on the notes, before bringing this suit.
We answer: First — That both these matters are res adjudicata by the judgment of the circuit court of 1887, as- against the B. & O. Co.
Second — That neither of these matters have ever been pleaded or denied by that company.
Third — That this judgment was rendered not only upon the claims of Smith' and Hamilton, but also upon the petition of Gibson Atherton, trustee.
Fourth — That the N., S. & S. R. R. Co. had no valuable interest in any property, and practically, a railroad of this small size, with a mortgage of $800,000 upon it, cannot be sold on execution, and payment of the plaintiff’s claim could not be enforced against it by ordinary process. Wright v. McCormack, 17 O. S.. 86, 2d.
We claim the B. & O. Co. was the equitable owner of the stock that was in the name of Drexel, Morgan & Co., if not the legal holder also, never having yielded possession to D., M. & Co. or any body else. There was no error in assessing the company on this stock, although it did not stand in its name on the books, if the B. & O. Co. is equitable owner only. Section 3259, Revised Statutes. Henkle v. Salem Manufacturing Co., 39 Ohio St., 553.
If equitable owner only, and Drexel, .Morgan & Co. is trustee and the B. & O. Co. • is cestui qui frustent, then the B. & O. Co. being substantial owner, we insist that the creditors may in this action look to it, and it is in law under obligation *589to pay Drexel, Morgan & Co. •all that the latter may be bound to pay as trustees.
Trustee of stock must look to the cestui qui trust for his indemnity or reimbursement. Henkle v. Salem Co., 39 O. S., 532, bottom.
And this obligation arises upon any express promise, or if there is no express promise, then just as well upon the implied promise, which the law always raises, when there is a clear duty. Perry on Trusts, section 485 ;Harpold v. Stohert, 46 O. S., 401; Cook on Stockholders, section 503, page 539. Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 O. S., pp. 680.
Again, the B. & O. Co., the cestui qui m-ust, being liable to Drexel, Morgan & Co., its trustee, for whatever they would have to pay on the stock, at the suit of the creditors, the creditors, may enforce immediately, in this suit (the B. & O. Co. being party to the suit), that liability, against it, as the party ultimately liable. Brown v. Hitchcock 36 O. S., 681, middle; Riddle v. Mandeville, 5Cranch, 322; 2 Story Eq. Jur., section 1253; Grant v. Ludlow, 8 O. S., 24 ; Russell v. Clark's E'x’rs, 7 Cranch, 69; Banker. Weisiger,2 Peters, 331, 347.
Equity delights in saving multiplicity of suits and avoiding circuity of action, and in reaching the person on whom a claim should ultimately fall; and will do so when that person is a party to the suit.
Where executor has paid assets to legatee, credit- or may sue legatee directly. 1 Roper on Leg., 458 (2.) 2. Story on Equity, section 1253.
Creditor will be given the benefit of lien of partners on partnership property. Miller v. Estill, 5. O. S. 5 516, 1; Story on Equity, section 675. 2; Story on Equity, section 1253.
A third party may maintain an action either at law or equity on a promise made for- his benefit. *590Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 3 Ohio St., 549; Bageley v. Waters, 7 Ohio St., 367; Trimble v. Strothers, 25 Ohio St., 381. In the case of an implied promise. Thompson v. Thompson, 3 Ohio St., 333. If the transfer or purchase is made in the name of a fictitious or irresponsible party, a fortiori, the real owner can be ascertained and made liable, and it would be' done even before section 3259 was enacted. Morawetz on Cor., section, 855; Thompson on Liability of Stockholders, sections 311 to 314.
The fact that the B. & O. Co. procured certificates of stock to be issued in the name of Drexel, Morgan & Co., the certificates never having been delivered to them, does not invest the title in Drexel, Morgan & Co. Witters v. Sowels, 32 Fed. Rep., 762.
The defense of ultra vires is not raised or presented so that this court can ' consider it because the ownership of stock by the B. & O. Co., was admitted by that company in the pleadings and never denied.
The corporate power of the B. & O. Co. to hold the stock does not arise on the pleadings or otherwise.
It is a defense that must be pleaded specially, as infancy, insanity, coverture and the like are pleaded. 2. Beach on Priv. Corp., sections 422 and 868. Germ. Sav., etc., v. Jacoby, 11 S. W. 256, Mo. Rep., 1891.
Demurrer to a plea of want of power sustained. Hamilton & Bossville Hy. Co. v. The C., H. & D. R. R. Co., 29 O. S., 341.
Leave to file answer alleging want of power refused. Third Ave. Savings Bank, 24 N. J. Eq., 26.
It has not been so pleaded. The fact of owner*591ship, which implies the power to own, has been repeatedly admitted by it, in the pleadings.
Those admissions of ownership in the pleadings were not made casually or carelessly, but with deliberation and to achieve a benefit to itself.
If the B. & O. Co. had not corporate power to purchase the stock, still the title in fact vested in it, and so long as it holds it, it is liable as other stockholders are.
A conveyance of property to a corporation is not void, because the corporation was not authorized to receive it. The title passes. 2 Moraw , sections 707, 710, 712, 100; Union Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S., 188; Walsh v. Barton, 24 O. S., 42; Sanderson v. Iron Co:, 34 O. S., 442; Morgan v. Lewis, 46 O. S., 128, 105 U. S., 108, 106 U. S., 481.
Title so acquired cannot be disavowed unless the property be restored. Cook on Stockholders, section 744.
Even statutory prohibitions to acquire, do not make the title void, on account of the insecurity it would cause in titles. 2 Moraw., 678.
While stock purchased without corporate authority is held, dividends on it may be collected, though the corporation holding may have no rig’ht to vote it. Millbank v. N. Y. & S. E., 64 How.Pr., 20; see Wrights. Pipe Line Co., 47 Am. R., 701.
In a suit for rent of a branch road, a railway corporation cannot defend on ground of its own ibltra vires to take the lease. 2 Beach Corp., section 433; Camden and May, 48 N. J., 530.
Every tort by a corporation involves the commission by it of an unauthorized act, and yet the corporation is held liable as an individual would be. It will not be heard to say that the act was done in a matter beyond its corporate powers. 2 Mora*592wetz Corp., sec. 726; 2 Beach.Corp., sections 404n, 432 ; Cent. R. & B. Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala., 572.
The right or power of a corporation in Ohio to hold its own capital stock rests upon different grounds, especially that it would defeat the statutory liability. But under circumstances even it is lawful, as when a corporation takes it in payment of a debt. State v. Building Association, 35 Ohio St., 258.
That it has been decided in this state that a corporation cannot, by action, enforce against a defendant an executory contract made by the corporation, in a matter beyond its own corporate powers, does not weaken our claim. Coppin v. Greenlee, 38 O. S., 275; Railw. Co. v. Iron Co., 46 O. S., 44.
No such question arises here.
There is no presumption that a particular purchase by o'ne corporation of shares in another, or that any other act done, is ult/ra vires, especially the purchase of shares in another corporation transacting the same kind of business. 2 Beach Priv. Corp., sec. 393; Taylor v. M. Exp. Co., 6 O., 176, 219; Ehrman Ins. Co., 35 O. S., 324 and 258.
The presumption that arises upon the transactions of individuals that what has been done was lawfully and innocently done, ajiplies equally to the transactions of corporations till the contrary is shown. 99 U. S., 199; 7 N. Y., 381; 21 N. Y., 124; Wait on Insolvent Corp., section 10.
The liability of stockholders to creditors is by contract. 2 Morawetz on Cor., section 879; 1 Beach on Corp., section 24.
This contract, having been fully executed between the B. & O. Co. and the corporation issuing the stock, cannot be heard to make the objection of want of power. Whitney Arms & Co. v. Barlow *59363 N. Y., 62; Hays v. Gal. Gas Co., 29 Ohio St., 339; Bank of Chillicothe v. Mayor, 7 Ohio, pt. 2, 36; Steam Nav. Co. v. Weed, 17 Barb., 62.
It is not as if the act alleged to be ultra vires was unlawful or criminal. The liability of one who buys stock of another, to be assessed to pay debts, is not based on an implied obligation to indemnify the seller. It rests solely on the fact of ownership, and is to be primarily charged on him who owns it when suit is brought. Barrick v. Gifford, 47 O. S., 180, 189, etc.; Wheeler v. Faurot, 37 O. S., 28; Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 O. S., 667 (Syl. 2, 3, 4.)
Again, it is claimed on behalf of the B. & O. Co. that some equitable estoppel arises in its favor against Smith and Hamilton to prevent a part of its stock from being assessed to pay their claims.
To create such an estoppel or equity by a representation, several things must concur.
1. A transaction must be contemplated by one person. 2. And known to the other. 3. The representation must ordinarily be of a fact and be untrue, and must not be as to matters of opinion or inference. 4. The other party must have made substantially the transaction then contemplated, not some other; and have relied on the truth of the representation, and not have then known or had good reason to believe the contrary. Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St., 276; Mulvey v. King, 39 Ohio St., 491; Herman on Estoppel, 778.