HA¥NEI\
,y.
SCOTT.
343 Co. v. Frank,
Works Co. v. Ballou, 146 U. S. 517,13 Sup.Ct. 165; 148 U. S. 603,13 Sup. Ct. 69L"
It is further contended by the appellant that a corporation debtor does not stand on the same footing as an individual debtor; tbat, while. the latter. has absolute dominion over his own property, an insolvent corporation is a mpre trustee, holding its property for the benefit of its creditors and stockholders, and that a federal court of equity may entertain jurisdiction to wind up its affairs in a suit. brought by a simple contract creditor. This contention is declared in the above-cited cases to be at war with the notions which were derived from the English law with regard to the nature of cor· porate bodies. "A corporation is a distinct entity. Its affairs are necessarily managed by ofll.cers and agents, it is true; but in law it is as distinct a being as an individual is, and is entitled to hold property, if not contrary to its charter, as absolutely as an individual can hold it. Its estate is the same, its interest is the same, its possession is the same. Its stockholders may call the officers to .account, and may prevent any malversation of funds or fraudulent disposal of property on their .part. But that is done in the exercise of their corporate rights, not adverse to the corporate interests, but coincident with them.. When a COq/oration becomes insolvent, it is so far civilly dead that its proPerty may be administered as a trust fund for the benefit of its stockholders and creditors, and acoun of equity, at the instance of the proper parties, wUl then· make those funds trust funds which, under other circumstances, are as much the absolute property of the corporation as any man's property is bis." Graham v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 148, p. 160.
Under the settled law applicable to the federal courts, a simple contract creditor is not a proper party to invoke the aid of a court of equity to make the corporate funds trust funds, and to wind up the affairs of an insolvent corporation, unless the ordinary jurisdiction of the court has been enlarged by legislative authority. The jurisdiction of the court below had not been so enlarged, and it cannot be supported by an appeal to the state legislation in question. For these reasons the petition of the appellant for a rehearing is overruled. It wasdeterttlined by the court, and so announced, that, as the appellant had committed the first material error, the cause would be reversed at its cost. By mistake or oversight, the order as entered adjudged the costs against the appellees. The order of reversal heretofore entered will be so far modified as to adjudge the costs against the appellant, and in all other respects it will stand approved. HAMNER v. SCOTT. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 12, 1894.) No. 336. WHIT OF ERROR-FINAL JUDGMENT-ATTACHMENT.
order quashing an attachment, and leaving the action still pending in the trial court, cannot be reviewed by writ of error, since it is not a final .decision. Standley v. Roberts, 59 Fed. 836, distinguIshed.
In Error to the United States' Court in the Indian Territory. , Attachment by James B. Hamner against J. S. Scott. The at· tachment was quashed. fLD,d plaintiff brings error.
344
G.B-DenlSon and N. B:MtXey(Gilbert W. Pasco, W. M. Harrison, Q.ndM. M.Edmiston, on the brief), for plaintiff in error. W.'l\'Hutchings (R. It Sliepard and H. O.Shepard, on the brief), fOr defendant in error. .' and SA,:N:aORN, Circuit Judges, and THAY· ER, Judge. ",. Circuit The plaintiff in error, James B. suit against J. S'" 8cott, the defendant in error, in court in,the Inqjan Territory, on certain promissory notes, and sued out an order of attachment in the action. On motion,of.thedefendant, theordllr of attachment was quashed, and thereuWij.',the plaintiff sued, out this writ of error to review the lower court ,quashing the' attachment. The principal action}1fiatill pending in theJ9wer ,court. ,A.il order,quashing an a final decisi,oIl, within the meaning of the act ofcongl'eijacreating this court <chapter 517, § 6,26 8tat.:826), and a writ of errOl" 'will not lie to review such an order (Robinson v. Belt, 5 C. Fed. 328;,:niddle,v. Hudgins, 7,C. C. '4.335, 5,8 Fed. add tha.tthia is the rule. in,Al'kanaa:s, under the Code Qt:.Ptractice of. that state, in1'S>rce in the Indian ,Territory, and under which the attachment ,in ;this case was,'sued out., Didier v. Galloway, 3 ·l\.rk.501;Heffn'er t: Day, 54 Ark. 79.1 Theadjudged cases'inother states are not harmonious, but the weight of authority is that an sustaining or dissolving an ,attacb.J:Dent is interlocutory, and not appealable, ,in the 'absence of a statute 'making it so.LBlack, Judgm. §36;'Elliott,App. Proc. §§ 81, 88,and cases cited in! note' 3. The casent bar Is distinguishable from that of 8tandley·v. Roberts, 59 Fed; ;836l in this: In that case there was a final decree: upon' all of the :issues in the case between the parties to the apPeal;: As ,between 'them, there was a final and complete determination':61 the action upon issues which did not: concern the other parties to the suit., In this ease the mai:il. action between the parties Aoithe,writ of error is pending and undetermined in the lO'WE:r court. The writ of error is dismissed. '
:ADKINS v. W. & 1. SLOANE.'
(OircuIt Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit., Februar;y 12, 1894.' , No. 344. REVIEW ON ApPEAL-SPECIAL FINDING.
Where some of the facts are 'admitted by 8tfpttlatlon, and others left to be proved,' and the court finds the issues f{)r the plaIntiff "on all the eVidenee,"',1:hefinding is general, and the' opinion of the trial court, 111 which 'th9ql1e8tions of fact and law are discUSllM, cannot be considered. In connection wIth as a special 1lnWng of facts. review.. ble,by ttie,oourt ot appe8Ja.' " "
'14 S. W. 1090.