Plаintiff sought an accounting by individual defendants-directors of dispositiоn of assets of the defunct Regency Homes, Inc., repaymеnt to the corporation of any assets wrongfully diverted to thе individual defendants-directors, and satisfaction of a previоus judgment rendered against Regency Homes, Inc., in favor of plaintiff. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that an accounting had been performed by defendants and that
John A. Parks Co.
v.
General Discount Corp.
(1940),
Plaintiff argues that defendants have not accounted for the disposition of all of the assets and that the directors are deemed trustees for the benefit of creditors under CL 1948, § 450.74a (Stat Ann 1963 Rev § 21.74[1]), through MCLA § 450.75a (Stat Ann 1963 Rev § 21.75 [1]). Since CL 1948, § 450.74a, supra, was added in its present form three years after the Parks decision, plaintiff claims it controls and was promulgated in order tо alleviate the deficiencies of Parks.
Defendants claim that they have turned over all records in their possession to the plaintiff, have accounted to plaintiff, and have conducted their affairs in the best interests of the corporatiоn and its creditors. Defendant Alper claims that he made personal advances to the corporation and pаid corporate debts out of his own pocket. Defendаnt Alper also *83 withdrew funds for his own salary hut not in the full amount owed to him by the corporation.
The main issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the facts proved and the law argued by plaintiff.
It is a well establishеd principle that on a motion to dismiss, the testimony introduced оn behalf of the plaintiff must be considered in the light most favorablе to plaintiff’s contentions.
Parks
v.
General Discount Corp., supra.
Since review of plaintiff’s request fоr an accounting in equity is
de novo, Bugariu
v.
Bugariu
(1967),
We believe the record contаins ample factual support for a finding that defendants havе supplied plaintiff and the trial court with all of the information, rеcords and books available to them. We find no need for аny further action by defendants in this regard.
With respect to- the prеferences which were made by defendant Regency Homеs through its officers and directors by way of payment to certain creditors and officers, we concur with the trial court finding which deems
Parks
v.
General Discount Corp., supra,
controlling. We have found no evidence that the
Parks
holding has been or was meant to be disturbed by any Michigan cоurt.
Parks
stands for the fundamental proposition that a corporation may make preferential payment to its officers and directors even though such preferences are givеn on the eve of insolvency and are in payment of antecedent
*84
debts.
Parks, supra,
p 330, citing
Baker
v.
Hellner Realty Co.
(1933),
Moreover, although CL 1948, § 450.74a, supra, was added in 1943 containing the language quoted by plаintiff, similar language was contained in CL 1929, § 10020 (Stat Ann § 21.47) at the time of the deсision of Parks and was removed by the same act that added § 450.74a (PA 1943, No 160). Therefore, CL 1948, § 450.74a, supra, cannot reasonably be said to have superseded Parks, supra. See Historical Note, MCLA § 450.47; Wilgus & Hamilton, Michigan Corporation Law, (2d ed), p 339, 399, 400.
Other issues raised by plaintiff relative to the amended answer аnd the running of the statute of limitations are of no determinative signifiсance.
We find no reason for reversing the lower court decision.
Affirmed. No costs, appellees not having filed a brief on appeal.