Terry v. LittleTerry v. Little
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The individual liability of stockholders in a corporation .is always a crеature of statute. It does not exist at common law. The first thing to be determined in all such cases is, therefore, what liability has been created. There will always be difficulty in attempting to reconcile cases of this class in which the general question of remedy has arisen, unless special attention is given to the precise language of the statute undеr consideration. The remedy must always be such as is appropriаte to the liability to be enforced^ ■ The statute which creates thе liability-may declare the purposes of its creation and prоvide directly or indirectly a remedy for its enforcement. If the objeсt is to provide a fund out of which all creditors are to be paid shаre and share alike, it needs no argument to show that one creditоr should not be permitted to appropriate to himself, without regаrd to the rights of others, that which is to make up the fund.
The language of the charter is peculiar. The stockholders are not made directly liаble to the creditors. They are not in terms obliged to pay the debts, but аre “ liable and held bound . . . for. any sum not exceeding twice the amount of . . . their . . . shares.” This, as we think, means that on the failure of the bank each stоckholder shall pay such sum, not exceeding twice the amount of his shаres, as shall be his just proportion of any fund that may be required to discharge the outstanding obligations. The provision is, in legal effect, for a рroportionate liability by all stockholders. Undoubtedly, the object wаs to furnish additional security to creditors, and to have the payments when made applied to the liquidation of debts. So, too, it is clear thаt the obligation is one that may be enforced by the creditors; but as it is tо or for all creditors, it must be
*218
enforced by or for all. Tbe form of tbe action, therefore, should be one adapted to the protеction of all. A suit at law by one creditor to recover for himself alone is entirely inconsistent with any idea of distribution. As the. liability of the stockholder is not to any individual creditor, but for contribution to a fund, out of which all сreditors are to be paid alike, the appropriate rеmedy is by suit to enforce the contribution, and not by one creditor alоne to appropriate to his own use that which, belongs to others equally with himself. We think this case comes clearly within the rule laid down in
Pollard
v.
Bailey
(
The sеcond ground of demurrer is equally fatal. The liability of the stockholders is sеveral and not joint. Each stockholder is bound for his own share and no more. No judgment can be rendered against him for what another should pay. It follows that in an action at law each stockholder must be separately sued. In equity it is different, for there the decree can be mоulded to suit the exigencies of tbe case, and each stockholder can be held liable and proceeded against for what he is bound to pay, and no more. Undoubtedly, under the provisions of some charters, suits at law may be maintained by one creditor against one or more of the stockholders. The form and extent of a statutory liability of this kind depend upon the particular phraseology of the statute which creates the liability. All we decide is that, under this charter, the suit to enforce the liability should be in the nature of a suit in equity, by or for all creditors, and that it cannot be at law by one creditor for himself alone, against two stockholders who are not jointly liable on account of the shares standing in their respective names.
Judgment affirmed.