Majority
Headnote
1. Corporation—How dissolved—What essential for its dissolution.This corporation has not been dissolved. Its legal existence continues, although it has ceased to exist for all educational purposes and no longer exercises the powers conferred by its charter. A corporation may be dissolved by the surrender of its charter and its acceptance by the state, but it cannot be held to be actually dissolved until so adjudged and determined, either by judicial sentence or sovereign power. Kinkaid v. Dwinelle, 58 N. Y., 543 ; Stone v. Framingham, 109 Mass., 303 ; Denike v. N. Y. and R. lime Co., 80 N. Y., 599 .
This defendant has never been called upon, at any time or place, to defend its corporate life. The prosecution of this action against it as sole defendant by a private individual for the purpose of reaching money and assets in the hands of its officers, and seeking no other relief, is an admission of its continued lawful existence.
The finding of the trial court that the trustees do not contemplate the resumption of instruction under the provisions of the act of incorporation, and that there is no reasonable probability of the resumption of its educational functions, may be sufficient reasons for dissolving the corporation by the judgment of a court having jurisdiction exercised and in the mode and manner provided by statute. It does not follow that a corporation is dissolved by a sale of its visible and tangible property for the payment of its debts, and by the temporary suspension of its business, so long, it has the moral and legal capacity to increase its subscriptions, call in more capital and resume its business. Philips v. Wickham, 1 Paige, 590; Brinckerhoff v. Brown, 7 Johns. Ch., 217 ; Angell & Ames on Corporations, 739 (3d ed.).
It is a general rule that a cause of forfeiture cannot be taken advantage of, or enforced against a corporation collaterally or incidentally, or in any other mode, than by a direct proceeding for that purpose against the corporation, so that it may have an opportunity to answer and defend. In this state a court of equity has not, by virtue of its general inherent powers, the right to dissolve a corporation*
The purpose of this action is to secure a distribution among the subscribers of so much of the endowment fund as now remains in the hands of the trustees of the corporation. The plaintiff’s contention is, that the endowment fund was created and paid over to the academy for a specific use to enable the corporation to carry out the purpose of its organization, that is to give classical instruction together with instruction in the useful arts and sciences as provided by the charter and when the fund ceased to be used by the corporation for that purpose, or whenever it became practically or actually dissolved, the fund reverted to the subscribers. The special term concurred in that view of the case and adjudged and determined that the trustees hold the moneys and securities of the endowment fund, now remaining in their hands, in trust for the persons who subscribed and contributed to the same and directing the paying over and distribution of the fund among such subscribers, when ascertained, in the mode and manner indicated by the interlocutory decree.
The defendant’s position is, that the corporation is the absolute owner of all the property of the corporation, including the endowment fund, and asked the trial court to order a distribution of the same among the stockholders after the payment of all the indebtedness.
It is not appropriate in our judgment in this action to determine these questions and all discussions of the same may be properly postponed until the matter is brought before some court which has jurisdiction to dissolve the corporation, and adjudicate the right of the creditors, the stockholders, and the subscribers, to the endowment fund. In proceedings conducted under the provisions of the statutes relative to this subject all interested parties will have opportunity to be heard and protect of their rights and interest. If the decree is affirmed, then the creditors are cut off without a hearing, as well as the stockholders who have not as yet had their day in court.
If the decree should be modified so as to carry the views of the defendant, then the fund would be distributed to and among the creditors and stockholders without any of the subscribers to the fund being heard, except the plaintiff.
The interlocutory decree is reversed, and a new trial granted with costs, to abide the final award of costs.
Haight, Bradley and Dwight, JJ., concur.