Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/777

 CHAP. XIV.] OFFICERS AND CREDITORS. [§ 759. erences among them. 1 And certainly, when directors are themselves among the number of corporate creditors, they can- not make use of their official position in order to secure to themselves advantages over other creditors in the settlement of the corporate indebtedness. Any such unfair transaction will be set aside at the suit of creditors ; and directors will be com- pelled to account for the ratable benefit of all the creditors, for whatever corporate assets they have taken possession of or as- signed to themselves, after the insolvency of the corporation, for the securing 1 of their own claims. 2 Nor will directors in defence 1 Richards v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 43 N. H. 263; Haywood v. Lin- coln Lumber Co., 64 Wis. 639. See Casserly v. Manners, 9 Hun, 695; Atlas Tack Co. v. Exchange Bank, 111 Ga. 713. Also § 668. 2 Olney y. Conancut Land Co., 16 R. I. 597; Sweeny v. Sugar Co., 30 W. Va. 443; Kersteter's Appeal, 149 Pa. St. 148; Hopkins & Johnson's Ap- peal, 90 Pa. St. 69; Smiths. Putnam, 61 N. H. 632; Wilkinsons. Bauerle, 41 N. J. Eq. 635; Haywood v. Lum- ber Co., 64 Wis. 639; Bradley v. Far- well, 1 Holmes, 433; Corbett v. Woodward, 5 Sawyer, 403; Stout v. Yaeger Milling Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 802; Gaslight Imp't Co. v. Terrell, L. R. 10 Eq. 168. See Throop v. Hatch Li th. Co., 125 N. Y. 530; Kingsley v. First Nat. Bk., 31 Hun (X. Y.), 329; Gottlieb v. Miller, 154 111. 44; Love Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 74 Miss. 290; King v. Woolridge, 78 Miss. 179; Gibson v. Trowbridge Furniture Co., 96 Ala. 357; Goodyear Rubber Co. v. George D. Scott Co., ib. 439; Corey v. Wadsworth, 99 Ala. 68. (These three cases limited in O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer, 106 Ala. 205. ) Sutton Mfg. Co. v. Hutchinson, 24 U. S. App. 145; Bos worth v. Bk., ib. 413; Mercantile Co. v. Co-opera- tive Ins., 12 Utah, 213; Hays v. citi- zens' Bk., 51 Kan. 535; Bridge Co. v. Fowler, 55 Kan. 17; Plow Co. v. Rude, 60 Kas. 145; Ingwersen w. Edgecombe, 42 Neb. 740; Wyman ». Williams, 52 Neb. 833; S. C, 53 Neb. 670; Stough v. Ponca Mill Co., 54 Neb. 500; Seeds Dry Plate Co. v. Heyer Photo-Supply Co., 57 Neb. 214; cf. Nebraska Nat. B'k v. Clark, 58 Neb. 183; Reynolds v. Smith, 60 Neb. 197; Hill v. Lumber Co., 113 N. C. 173; Smith v. Bradt Printing Co., 97 Tenn. 351; Taylor u. Mitchell, 80 Minn. 493. See Mary Lee Coal, etc., Co. v. Knox, 110 Ala. 632; Mont- gomery v. Phillips, 53 N. J. Eq. 203. Cf. Duncomb v. N. Y., Housatonic, etc., R. R. Co., 88 N. Y. 1; S. C, 84 N. Y. 190; Larrabee v. Franklin Bk., 114 Mo. 592; Bassett o. Monte Christo Mining Company, 15 Nev. 293; Sav- age v. Miller, 56 N. J. Eq. 432; Taylor v. Gray, 59 N. J. Eq. 621; Clark v. Colton, 91 M'd, 195; Hill v. Standard Tel. Co., 198 Pa. St. 446; Symonds v. Lewis, 94 Me. 501 ; § 632. Contra, Planters' Bank v. Whittle, 78 Va. 737; Foster v. Mullanphy Planing Mill Co., 16 Mo. App. 150; Garrett v. Burlington Plow Co., 70 Iowa, 697; Rollins v. Shaver Wagon Co., 80 Iowa, 380; Warfield r. Mar- shall County Canning Co.. 72 Iowa, 666; Foster ». Mullanphy Planing Mill Co., 92 Mo. 79; Rockford Gro- cery Co. v. Standard Grocery Co., 175 111. 89; South Bend Steel Plow Co. y. George C. Cribb Co., 97 Wis. 230; 757