Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/572

 S91; Dobson v. Simonson, 86 N. C. 492; No. 15, Sons of Temperance v. Ashton, g2 N. C. 578; Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384; White v. Campbell, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 38.

“If a corporation is dissolved it ceases to be a going concern and thereafter its good will is of no value. ‘“The act of liquidation destroys the value of such good will as a value separate and apart from the value of the tangible assets.’” Fletcher's Cyclopedia Corporations, Vol. 8, p. 9177, § 5571; Watkins v. National Bank (Kan.) 32 Pac. 914; Rossing v. State Bank (Ia.) 165 N. W. 254. W.S. Lauder, for plaintiffs-appellants.

A trustee may not lawfully deal with the trust property for his own advantage, or for the advantage of the company or corporation in which he has a personal interest. Clendenning v. Hawk, (N. D.) 86 N. W. 114,. see pp. 116-117, 10 N. D. 90; Anderson v. First Nat’l. Bank, (N. D.) 64 N. W. 114; McKay v. Williams, (Mich.) 35 N. W. 159; Kimball v. Ranney (Mich.) 80 N. W. 992; King v. Remington et al (Minn.) 29 N. W. 352; Stettnische v. Lamb (Neb.) 26 N. W. 374; Veeder v. McKinley, Lansing Loan & Trust Co. et al (Neb.) 86 N. W. 982; Frazier v. Jenkins, (Kan.) 57 L. R. A. 575; Ferguson v. Gooch Trustee, (Va.) go L. R. A. 234; Kindman et al v. O’Connor (Ark.) 13 L. R. A. 490; Moore v. Mandlebaum, (Mich.) 8 Mich. 432; Wormley v. Wormley (U. S.) 5 L. ed. 651; Harding v. Handy, (N. S.) 6 L. ed. 429 (Chief Justice Marshall) ; Michaud v. Girod (U. 8.) 11 L. ed. 1076, see particularly column 2, p. 1098. One of the three leading cases of this country, Richardson v. Jones, (Md.) 22 Am. Dec. 293; Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Sherman, (N. Y.) 30 Barb. 553; Gardner v. Ogden (N. Y.) 78 Am. Dec. 192-22 N. Y. 327; Barnes et al v. Lynch et al (Okla.) Pac. ag5; Brunner v. Finley et al (Pa.) 41 Atl. 334; Sage et al v. Culver et al (N. Y.) 41 Atl. 513; Wayne Pike Co. et al v. Hammons et al (Ind.) 27 N. E. 487. “The State alone can complain of the exercise by a corporation of its franchise beyond the period for which it was organized.” Miller v. Newburg etc. Co. 31 W. Va. 836—12 A. S. R. 903; Brady v. Deleware Mut. Ins. Co. 45 Atl. 345 (Del.); Arlington Hotel Co. v. Rector, 124 Ark. go—186 S. W. 662; Wilson v. Brown, 175, N. Y. S. 688.

The defendants are estopped to deny the corporate character of the old company down to Aug. 13, 1918. It is the settled law of the land that