Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/442

 Enforcement Abroad of Stockholders or Directors Liability, 393 How far the dictum in Huntington v. Attrill will be followed when the question is act ually presented in the Supreme Court of the United States it is difficult to say. It is naturally followed in the inferior Federal courts.1 A proceeding against a director in such a case, though an action for a penalty is not a criminal proceeding; and if action is brought against the director and judgment obtained in the State of charter, the judgment will be enforced everywhere. The original claim, which was not enforceable in a foreign State, merged in the judgment: and that being an ordinary judgment inter partes, effect is given to it in a foreign State.2 By this method the director may always be reached, if the incor1 First Nat. Bank v. Weidenbeck, 97 Fed. 896. 2 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, reversing Attrill -•. Huntington, 70 Md. 191.

porating State will have it so: for even if the director is not an inhabitant of that State, a valid judgment may be had against him un der a statute providing that any member of the corporation shall be subject to the juris diction of the courts of the State. Judgment having been obtained in the State of charter may then be enforced anywhere. No in justice is done, therefore, by the refusal of a foreign State to enforce such provisions. IV. When one stockholder or director is obliged to satisfy a claim against the corpora tion, because of his statutory liability to do so, a claim for contribution from his fellowstockholders or fellow-directors arises which may be enforced in any jurisdiction." 'Allen v. Fairbanks, 45 Fed. 445; (but see Sayles v. Brown, 40 Fed. 8); Nickerson v. Wheeler, 118 Mass. 295.