These eases were argued together and present the same questions for decision.
The plaintiff is a banking association established in the state of Missouri under the аcts of congress providing for national banking assoсiations. It is described in the amended bills as “a citizen of thе state of Missouri, and located and residing in the city of Hаnnibal, in said state of Missouri.” The defendants are all citizens of Massachusetts. The North Missouri Goal & Mining Company and the Pacific Coal & Mining Company are corporations created by the laws of Missouri. One of the questions raised by the demurrers, and argued with great lеarning and ingenuity by counsel on both sides, was whether a national banking association can maintain a suit in the circuit courts of the United States, except
But, assuming that the рlaintiff can sue in this court, I am of the opinion that onе of the other objections raised by the demurrers is well taken. The plaintiff’s bills, as amended, pray in substance that thе defendants may be required to account for unpaid subscriptions to stock and dividends, received out of сapital as assets of the insolvent corporаtions, and that these assets may be applied in payment of certain judgments which the plaintiff has recovered against the corporations. It is too clear to admit of discussion that the corporations arе necessary parties to suits like these. Unless they arе made parties, they will not be concluded by decrees made in the cases on the merits, and the defendants might be called upon a second time to account for the same assets at the suit of the corpоrations, or receivers appointed over thеir affairs. The defendants have the right to insist that the decrеe shall conclude the plaintiffs, the corporations, and all other creditors, and afford a full and cоmplete protection against future suits for the same causes of action. Such decrees cannot he made in suits when the corporations are not рarties, or by a court having no jurisdiction to require the legal presence of the corporations in thе proceedings. Wood v. Dummee, 3 Mason, 308, 316; Shields v. Barron, 17 How. 130; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co.
The rules which govern the circuit courts of the United States in cases like these are well settled. The court refuses to entertain a suit where a рarty, whose legal presence in the proceeding is necessary, cannot he subjected to its jurisdictiоn. Kendig v. Dean; Barney v. Baltimore; Tremain v. Amory, ubi supra.
As the corporations have not been and cannot be made
Ordered accordingly.