89 N.Y. 338 | NY | 1882
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *342 The twenty-fourth section of the General Manufacturing Law of 1848 (Chap. 40) has been construed in the case of Handy v.Draper* decided at the present term, and it is there held that the return of an execution unsatisfied against the corporation is a condition precedent to the right of a creditor to bring an action against a stockholder, and that this condition applies to the case of a continuing stockholder as well as to that of one who has ceased to be such.
The proceeding against the company in Colorado was not a compliance with this condition. It was a proceeding in rem,
which affected only the property there attached, and the execution issued was only against that specific property. (Dix
v. Briggs, 9 Paige, 595; Crippen v. Hudson,
The judgment should be affirmed.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.