Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/435

 PART V.] DISSOLUTION. [§ 432. ness by the corporation, 1 does not effect its dissolution ; nor does its insolvency. 2 Neither does a dissolution result where the corporation is insolvent, and has ceased to do business as well ; 3 even when it has assigned all its property for the benefit of its creditors, 4 or a receiver has been appointed. 5 It has even been held that the fact that a corporation is insolvent will not authorize it to apply to a court of equity for a receiver to wind up its affairs, in order to prevent one creditor from acquiring by suit a preference over others ; the court saying, that a re- ceiver might be appointed at the instance of a creditor, but not at the instance of an insolvent debtor. 6 Co., 20 Conn. 447; Harris v. Miss. Valley, etc., R. R. Co., 51 Miss. 602; Smith v. Smith, 3 Dessaur (S. C. ), 557; Parker v. Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252. 1 Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Saner, 65 Mo. 279, 288; Nimmons v. Tappan, 2 Sweeny (X. Y. ), 652; Mickles v. Rochester City Bk., 11 Paige (N. Y.), 118; Moseby o. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396; State v. Barron, 58 N. H. 370; Weig- and o. All. Sup. Co., 44 W. Va. 133; Law o. Rich, 47 W. Va. 634; Richards v. Minn. Sav. B'k, 75 Minn. 196; Com- pare Matter of Jackson Marine Ins. Co., 4 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 559; Conro v. Gray, 4 How. Pr. (N. Y. ) 166; Troy & Rutland R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 17 Barb. 581; Sleeper v. Norris, 59 Kas. 555; Salem Nat. B'k v. Prescott, 60 Kas. 490. A railroad company is not dis- solved by a sale of its road. State v. Rives, 5 Ired. L. (N. C.) 297. 2 Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396; Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co. v. Griffith, 76 Va. 913; cases in the fol- lowing notes. 8 Valley Bank v. Sewing Society, 28 Kan. 423; Electric Lighting Co. v. Leiter, 19 Dist. Col. 575; see Davis v. Memphis, etc., R. R. Co., 87 Ala. 633. A national bank in voluntary liquida- tion under § 5220 of the U. S. Rev. Stat, is not thereby dissolved as a cor- poration, but may sue and be sued by name for the purpose of settling dis- puted claims against its assets, even though the plaintiff may have filed a creditor's bill to enforce the individ- ual liability of shareholders. Na- tional B'k v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54. 4 Boston Glass Manufactory v. Langdon, 24 Pick. 49; Town v. Bank of River Raisin, 2 Dougl. (Mich. ) 530; De Camp v. Alward, 52 Ind. 468; State v. Bank of Maryland, 6 G. & J. 205. 6 Kincaid o. Dwiuelle, 59 N. Y. 548; Lea o. America, etc., Canal Co., 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 1, 11; City Ins. Co. u. Commercial Bank, 68 111. 348; Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383; Green v. Walkill Nat. Bank, 7 Hun, 63; Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396; State v. Railroad Com- missioners, 41 N. J. L. 235; Heath v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co., 83 Mo. 617; State v. Butler, 86 Tenn. 614; Jones v. Bank of Leadville, 10 Col. 464. Compare Bell v. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 53 Ind. 57; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ray, 51 Ind. 269; Hol- lingshead v. Woodward, 107 U. S. 96; Hutchison v. Crutcher, 98 Tenn. 421. There is nothing in the statutes re- lating to national banks that takes them out of the operation of this general rule. National Bank v. De- posit Co., 161 U. S. 1. 6 Hugh v. McRae, Chase's Dec. 466. 415