Hammond v. Cline
170 Ind. 452
Ind.
1908
Check Treatment

*455cannot be enforced by the receiver of an insolvent corporation for the benefit of the creditors. Runner v. Dwiggins (1897), 147 Ind. 238, 36 L. R. A. 645, and authorities cited; Wallace v. Milligan (1887), 110 Ind. 498; Gainey v. Gilson (1897) , 149 Ind. 58. See, also, Hale v. Allinson (1903), 188 U. S. 56, 23 Sup. Ct. 244, 47 L. Ed. 380; Evans v. Nellis (1902), 187 U. S. 271, 23 Sup. Ct. 74, 47 L. Ed. 173; Hancock Nat. Bank v. Ellis (1898), 172 Mass. 39, 51 N. E. 207, 42 L. R. A. 396, 70 Am. St. 232; Colton v. Mayer (1900), 90 Md. 711, 45 Atl. 874, 47 L. R. A. 617, 78 Am. St. 456; McLaughlin v. Kimball (1899), 20 Utah 254, 58 Pac. 685, Am. St. 908; Wincock v. Turpin (1880), 96 Ill. 135; Farnsworth v. Wood (1883), 91 N. Y. 308; Burns v. Trail (1898) , 89 Fed. 641; 3 Thompson, Corporations, §§3560, 3561; Cook, Stockholders (2d ed.), §218; 2 Beach, Priv. Corp., §716. This case belongs to the same class as the cases just cited.

5.

It does not, as maintained by appellant, come within the operation of §270 Burns 1908, §269 R. S. 1881, which provides that those united in interest must be joined as plaintiffs, and when numerous one may sue for the benefit of all. This is not an action by one creditor for numerous creditors.

We think the demurrer was rightly sustained. Judgment affirmed.