Meagher v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.

delivered the opinion of the court.

' One McKusick recovered judgment in the District Court of "Washington County, Minnesota, against the corporation of Seymour, Sabin & Co., and in aid of execution brought an action praying for a sequestration of the stock, property, things in action and effects of the corporation, and the appointment of a receiver to take charge thereof and carry on its business until sale or other disposition. A receiver was accordingly appointed, qualified and entered upon the administration of the company’s affairs and effects. An order was entered by the court requiring the creditors of the corporation to exhibit their claims in the action, which was. done, among others, by the Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Company to a very large

The District Court made an order impleading the parties named as defendants in the action, and requiring them to enter their appearance and answer within a time limited. Among the numerous persons thus made defendants, the plaintiffs in error in this case were included, and they demurred- to the intervening petition or supplemental complaint upon the ground, among others, that the facts stated were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The petition charged that defendants Avere liable-upon their stock to the extent of a Sum equal to the par value thereof for the debts of th’e Seymour-Sabin corporation under section 3,-article 10 of the constitution of Minnesota, Avhich provided“Each stockholder in any corporation (excepting those organized for the purpose of carrying on any kind of manufacturing or mechanical business) shall be liable to the amount of stock held or owned by him.”

The demurring defendants contended that this was a mere direction to the legislature of the State to impose such a liability and was not self-executing,

The demurrers were overruled with leave to answer over within twenty days from the entry of the order, and the present plaintiffs in error took an appeal to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. That court held that the constitutional provision was self-executing and created an individual liability on the part of the stockholder for corporate debts to an amount equal to the amount of stock held or owned by him, and affirmed the order of the District Court. Thereupon the writ of error from this court was sued out.

We are of opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota was not a final judgment within section 709 of the Pevised Statutes. It is a judgment affirming with costs an order which overruled a demurrer. Pule XYIII of the Supreme Court of Minnesota provides: “TJpon the reversal, affirmance, or modification of any order or judgment of the District Courts by.this court there will be- a remittitwr. to the District Court, unless otherwise ordered.” 12 Minn. XIY; Manual of Practice, 1872, Pule XYIII. The plaintiffs in error upon the return of the case to the District Court could plead over, as the order below allowing time for so doing had, before its expiration, been superseded by the appeal. Moreover, the record discloses that in this instance the parties, in view of taking the appeal, expressly stipulated “that after the decision on said appeal by said Supreme Court any of said defendants may answer ¿n the court below if they see fit to do so,.and

It will be observed that plaintiffs in error are only a portion of the defendants who were proceeded against by the intervening petition, and what has become of the others does not appear. The case should have been determined as to all, before our interposition, if justifiable in any view, could be invoked.

Under the complaint, accountings must be had and proofs taken as to the amount, of the proceeds of the insolvent corpo: ration’s estate; the rights of claimants therein; the liability of directors and shareholders, if any, upon other accounts, etc., and the amount to be paid by each shareholder must be decreed. If this were a decree of the Circuit Court, it would come within the rule that to be final the court below should have nothing to do but to execute it if affirmed. Keystone Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91 . And as 3,'judgment of reversal by a state court with leave for further proceedings in the court of original jurisdiction is not. subject to review here, Bostwiok v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3 ; Rice v. Sanger, 144 U. S. 197 , this is also true of a judgment merely affirming an interlocutory order, however apparently decisive of the merits.'

Writ of error dismissed.