GLOBE ROLLING-MILL CO. II. BALLOU.
551; ffi"bbonBv.Railroad 00.,36 Ala. 410; 'J!hornJJOn V. Lee 00.,3 Wan. 327; Bloodgood v. Railroad 00., 18 Wend. 10; Worcester v. Railroad Corp., 4 Mete. 564; St.ewartv. Polk 00.,30 Iowa, 9; Town of QueenBburyv. Culver, 19 Wall. 83; Railroad v. Oountyof Otoe, 16 Wall. 667; Oleott v. Supertnsors, Id. 678; LouiBvilk v. Bank, 104 U. S. 469; Fairfield v. County oj GaUatin, 100 U. S. 47; Oounty of v. Fairfrld, 105 U. S. 370; St. Joseph 7». v. Rogers, 16 Wall. 664; Rogers v. Burlington, 3 Wall. 664; Mitchell v. Burlington, 4 Wall. 270. The demurrer is overruled. and defendants iiven 30 days in which to answer the bill of complaint.
WALLACE, J. The demurrer to the bill must be sustained, upon the authority of the previous decisions of this court in Ctaflin v. Mc[)errTUJtt, 12 Fed. Rep. 375, and Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. Rep. 415. As those cases were decided by me, I feel free to say that I doubt whether they do not adopt a" too technical view of the right of a creditor whose judgment has been obtained against his debtor at the place of his domicile, and whose execution has been issued there, and returned unsatisfied, to maintain a creditors' bill in a court of another state; and I may be permitted to express the hope that the present case may be taken to the supreme court for review. . .
t1. BALWU d
(Ci7'cI£« Coun. B. D. New YqrJc. lIa)' &, 1890.)
Judgment against an iDso!vent corporation lD the state of Ita orgaDbatlon, ad return of execution UDsatisfied. will not authorize a bill by the judgment creditor In another state, where no judgment has been reoovered lIalnlt It. to enforce pay. ment of a subscription to ita .took.
In Equity. On demurrer. J. D. BranflOn, for plaintiff. 77wmaa ThaihtJr, Cor defendants. SHIPMAN, J. This is a demurrer to the platntift"11 bm in equity.. The bill that the defendant subscribed to the capitAl1stockoCan Ohio railroad corporation, which 8ubscriptions never. paid, andthilt he
FEDERAL REPORTER ,vol.
thereon; that the corporation became insolvent; and that of its creditors, recovered judgment against it in an Ohio stfJ-te court, upon which judgm(jnt e:lCecution was returned unsatisfied. The complainant now seeks·;. by this bill, in behalf of itself and the other creditors,to compelpaymeotby the defEmdant of the amount of said subscription to tbecapital stock. No judgment bas been recovered against tbe railroad corporation in tbe state of New York. In the three cases of Claflin v. McDermott,12 Fed. Rep. 375; Walser 'T. Seligman, 13 Fed., Rep. 415; and NationflZ Co. v. Ballou, ante, 749,Judge WALI,ACE' held that a creditors' bill in this court could not be sustained which was based only upon a judgment obtained against his debtor in a state court at the place of his domicile, in another state, and upon an un!'1atisfied e:lCecution issuing out of that court, no judgment having been recovered in this state. No distinction of importance is perceived, and none has been pointed out, between the last two cases and this case. The bill does not seem to be authorized by statute which permits the liability to be enforced by an immediate resort to a court of equity in case of the insolvency of the corporation. In the Tube- Works 0>. Case the judge says that he qoubts whether a too technical view has not been adopted in and hopes that the last case may be taken to the supratnecourt' for review, which has been done. Unless a valid distinction can, be shown between the case at har and the precedinj:( cases, '. the demurrer must be sustained; in the present state of the decisions in this circuit. The'demurrer is sustained;
& S. Col.niT.
(Ci.rcuit Court. D. South Carolma. June 23. 1890.)
RAILROADS-MuNIOIPAL Am-DELIVERY OF BONDS.
1l:! St. at Large S. C. 866, authorized certain townships to issue bonds in aid of a railroad, whicq was done; and they W,ere deposited with a trust company to be delivered to complain.ant,' W'hich WIlS build,ing the railroad, when the road was shown to be complete by certificate of its engineer, indorsed by thll chairman of county of the countr. ,.Theqhairman refused to make such lllddl'semeat ''O\:Hhe''8trengtb'OfadeClslOn of the state supreme court that the issue of bonds was void, as there was no law conferrillgon townships corporate functions, they being merely divisions. But thereafter the legisP"a.SBed, act,"'<,:#l af( L,'arge, expres.sly recogniZing the bonds as Ii ,toW;nShlp debt, and autJlp,rl,zmg the levy ofa tax to pay them. Beld that, as the the bonds to complainant should be de-
On appeal from sucb decree for the specific delivery of the bonds, the amount of the supersedeas bond, nnder supreme court rule' No, 29, will be fixed tb cover the coupons already due and to mature in four years" with 7 per cent. interest, '10 per cent, damage on the aggregate of interest, and the costs.
In Equity. :1Jbrd Hart, ,for complRinant. A.' Rol MileJt" ira; 'Jones. and W. B. WilBon, Jr., for defendants. Before :B0Npan,d ..8wollTON"JJ,,::