gument, ol which seethe following: Railroad, 00. v. · 512; S. C. 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 14; Railroad 00. v. Pa. St. 510j S. C. 18 Amer. Rep. 424; Flint v. 00. 34 Conn. 554; S.C. 6 Blatchf. 158 j Railroad Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200; S. C. 24 Amer. Rep. 689; Britton v. Railroad O. 536; S. C. 43 Amer. Rep. 749; Railroad Go. v. 546; Stewart v. Railroad Co. 90 N. Y. 588; S. C.48 Amer. Rep.lB5. Exceptions overruled, and judgment upon the report.
GLENN, Substituted Trustee, v. SOULE.I
SAME V. LABATT.I SAME
,Oirou,it (Jourt, E. D. Louisiana. November 29,1894.)
TRUsTEE-RIGHT TO SUE IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION.
A substituted under a deed of trust, appointed bl' a court, has title under the deed, and can maintain an action in any jurisdictIOn whereit 91ight be deemed necessary to protect his right, notWithstanding that thecoutt SO, appointing him also gave him the powers of a receiver, required a bond, and' ordered him to account; that cannot be considered asimpairlng his title the eked of trust or assignment. Elolimes v. Sherwood, 3 McCfI),I'Y, 16
l"ED, HEP. 725.
2. ASSESSMENT FOR UNPAID CAPITAL STOCK. A chancery court has the, authority to make a call necessary under the term.s of subscription to charge the subscribel'8 to the capital stock of a with liability for the amounts. of unpaid subscriptions. SCOfJile v. !'!l.a,y&f; 105 ' U. S. 155, S. SUrE-ACTION AT LAW. In such a case an action at law will lie, and in an action at law for such unpaid subscription snch call or assessment is necessary. 4. SAME-PRESCRIPTION. Prescription did not begin to run until the caH was made, for until then the unpaid subscription was not exigible. .
On Exceptions. The plaintiff sues, as substituted trustee under the appointment of the chancery court of the city of Richmond, Virginia. to execute the trusts of It certain deed of trnst made by the National Express & Transportation Company, a body politic and 'corporate under the la.ws of Virginia. which court also gave him the powers of receiver of said company, required a bond, and ordered him to account; to recover assessments made against the defendantJ, stockholders. of said com·
Reported by Joseph") Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
\', , The view that I take of these cases is that the substituted trustee has title under the deed of trust, and is therefore not to be regarded asattlereofficer of the chancery C0urt in Virginia. That court might have stopped short after appointing Glenn substituted trustee, and then there could have been no doubt about his right to maintain an action in any jurisdiction where it might be deemed necessary to protect his right. That the chancery court gave him required a bond, and him to account, the powers of a is a matter between him and the chancery court, and cannot be considered as impairing bis title under the deed of trust or assignment. See Holmes v. Sherwood, 3 McOrary, 405; S. O. 16 FED. REP. 725, and the authorities cited tlierein. ' I tbink there can be no dOll bt of the authority of the chancery court (on the failure of the board of'direotors) to make the call neoessary to enfprce the deed of trust, ,and necessary under the terms of subscription 'to oharge the subsoribers to stock with liability for the amounts of unpaid SUbscriptions., See ,Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 155; '. And'in an aotion at law for unpaid Bubsoription, such call or to be 'necessary. See Chandler v. Siddle, 8 Dill. 477., It be contended that all the stockholders were necesstt.ry patties to the proceedings before the court making the call. See 'Matyland case, and Sanger v. Upton,91 U. 8.56. Prescription did not begin to run until the call was made, for. until then the unpaid subscription was not exigible. Scovill v. Thayer, 8upra. In a case lika this I. thinK it well settled that an action at law will lie. The exceptions will be overruled. .
illti:t:re'd.) A. Goldthwaite, for 'plaintiff. ':J. O. Nirioil, Jr.; F. L. Richardson, H. E. Upton, and D. O. Labatt,
th'e saiil chancery conrt.
The defen<1anta8xoepted, (de-
'V. CITY OF WATERTOWlf.
(Ct'rcuit Oourt, W. D. Wisconsin.
STATUTE OF LrMtTATIONS·
. Courts cannot ingraft on IItatlItM of limitations exceptions, notcIearIy expressed : and wllere the of the' statute is perfectly clear, it is the duty of the court to enforce the Ia W as it DU<ls it.
At Law. , Finche8, Lynde tf Miller, for plaintiffs. Daniel Hall and Geo. W. Bird, for defendant. ' BUNN, J. This is an aotion brought upon three several bonds and interest coupons issued by the city of Watertown, June I, 1856, to