Delano v. Butler

118 U.S. 634, 7 S. Ct. 39, 30 L. Ed. 260, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1956

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: November 1, 1886
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Matthews,

after stating the case as reported above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Section 5151 of the Revised Statutes provides' that “ the shareholders of every national banking association shall be held individually responsible, equally and ratably, and not one for another, for all contracts, debts, and engagements of such association, to the extent of the amount of their stock therein, at the par value thereof, in addition to the amount invested in such shares.”

The object of the action at law brought by the receiver of the Pacific National Bank of Boston, in which judgment was rendered against the defendant, the plaintiff in error, was to enforce his liability under that section of the statute. The-object of the suit in equity, in which Delano was the complainant, was to restrain the prosecution of the action at law on the ground that, if his legal defences failed, he had in equity performed and extinguished his obligation.

The questions arising upon the records of these cases in various forms, upon the facts already stated, may be reduced to three, which will be considered and disposed of in their order.

The plaintiff in error, in the action at • law contends, as grounds for reversing the judgment against him,'

1st. That he was not, at the time of the appointment of the receiver, or at any time, the holder of sixty shares of'the stock of the Pacific National Bank} but was, in fact and in law, a holder of only thirty shares thereof. He contends 'that the attempt on the part of the directors and the Comptroller of the Currency, in December, 1881, to fix the capital stock of the bank at $961,300, was contrary to law and void; that the alleged thirty shares of new stock on account of which he is sued never had any legal existence, and that he, by virtue of his subscription in September, -1881, for thirty shares in the then proposed increase of capital from $500,000 to $1,000,000, and by his other acts, never became liable on account of the debts of the Pacific National Bank beyond his liability as the holder of thirty shares of valid stock.

2d. That by his contribution in January, 1882, of an amount equal to the par value of all the stock ever held by him, towards the fund, which was all used in the payment of the debts of. the bank, the bank then being insolvent, he in law discharged his liability as a stockholder in said bank, and should, therefore, have judgment in his favor.

3d. As appellant in the suit in equity, Delano alleges, as ground for reversing the decree dismissing his bill, that the contribution made by him on January 23, 1882, of an amount equal to the par value of the stock held by him, towards a fund which was actually used in the payment of the debts of the bank, the bank then being insolvent, constituted in equity a satisfaction and extinguishment of his liability as a stockholder for the debts of the bank, if not at law.

It is further contended by him, as an additional ground for 'equitable relief, that by the payment of the $3000 upon the thirty shares of alleged new stock, which he claimed never had any legal existence, and on which, therefore, he never incnrred any liability, he really contributed towards a fund actually used for the payment of the debts of the bank an amount equal to 200 per centum of the stock held by him, which payment, if not available in his favor as a satisfaction of his statutory liability technically at law, nevertheless must be regarded in equity as a substantial equivalent, exonerating him from further liability.

The first question to be considered is whether there was a valid increase of the capital stock of the Pacific National Bank, of which the plaintiff in error became the owner of thirty shares, so as to be charged with liability thereon as a stockholder. The articles of association of the bank provide that “ the capital may be increased, according to the provisions of section 5142 of the Revised Statutes, to any sum not exceeding ten hundred thousand dollars.”

The 11th section of the by-laws of the bank provides as follows :

“ Whenever an increase of stock shall be determined upon, it shall be the duty of the board to notify all the stockholders of the same, and cause a subscription to be opened for such increase, and each stockholder shall have the privilege of subscribing for such number of shares of new stock as he may be entitled to subscribe for, in proportion to his existing stock in the bank. If any stockholder should fail to subscribe for the amount of stock to which he may be entitled within a reasonable time, which shall be stated in the notice, the directors may determine what disposition shall be made of the privilege of subscribing for the new stock.”

Section 5142 of the Revised Statutes is as follows: “ Any association formed under this Title may, by its articles of association, provide for an increase of its capital from time to time, as may be deemed expedient, subject to the limitations of this Title. But the maximum of such increase to be provided in the articles of association shall be determined by the Comptroller of the Currency; and no increase of capital shall be valid until the whole amount of such increase is paid in, and notice thereof has been transmitted to the Comptroller of the Currency, and his certificate obtained, specifying the amount of such increase of capital stock, with his approval thereof, and that it has been duly paid in as part of the capital of such association.”

It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff in error that no increase of the capital stock of the bank was ever proposed by the directors or assented to by the subscribers, except an increase of the full sum of $500,000; that no such increase as that was ever fully paid in, as required by the statute, and that no such increase was approved by the certificate of the Comptroller of the Currency; that his agreement of subscription was to take thirty shares of a new stock out of the whole sum of $500,000; that that agreement has never been carried into effect, and that he has never consented to any modification of it, and that, consequently, whatever effect would be attributable to the acts of the directors or stockholders of the bank, in conjunction with the Comptroller of the Currency, they are res inter alios aetce, and not binding on him.

On looking at the terms of § 5142 of the Revised Statutes, it appears that three things must concur to constitute a valid increase of the capital stock of a national banking association: 1st. That the association, in the mode pointed out in its articles, and not in excess of the maximum provided for by them, shall assent to an increased amount; 2d, That the whole amount of the proposed increase shall be paid in as part of the capital of such association; and 3d, That the Comptroller of the Currency, by his certificate specifying the amount of such increase of capital stock, shall approve thereof, and certify to the fact of its payment.

In the present case the association did, in fact, finally assent to an increase of the capital stock, limited to $461,300; that amount was paid in as capital, and the Comptroller of the Currency by his certificate approved of the increase, and certified to its payment; so that there seems little room to question the validity of the proceedings resulting in such increase. All the requisitions of the statute were complied with. The circumstance that the original proposal was for an increase of $500,-000, subsequently reduced to the amqunt actually paid in, does not seem to affect the question, for the amount of the increase within the maximum was always subject to the discretionary power of the association itself, exerted in accordance with its articles of association, and to the approval and confirmation of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The question, therefore, seems to be converted into this: Whether the subscription of the plaintiff in error to a proposed increase of $500,000,' and his payment thereof, can be held to be a binding agreement to accept thirty shares out of the reduced amount.

It will be observed that, without waiting to see what the future action of the association and the Comptroller of the Currency might be on the question of the ultimate amount of the increased stock, the plaintiff in error paid for his shares and accepted his certificate. This he did, in legal contemplation, with knowledge, of the law which authorized- the association and the Comptroller of the Currency to reduce the amount of the proposed increase to a less sum than that fixed in the original proposal of the directors; and such payment and acceptance of certificates in accordance therewith might amount, under such circumstances, on his part, to a waiver of the right to insist that he should not be bound unless the whole amount of the proposed increase should be subscribed for and paid in. But without insisting upon that point, or deciding it, we think that the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff in error amounts to a ratification, on his part, of the action of the association, and of the Comptroller of the Currency, in fixing the amount of the increased stock at the less sum.

After he paid his subscription and received his certificates of stock, he was called upon, as a stockholder, alleged to be the owner of sixty shares of the capital, to pay an assessment voluntarily imposed upon themselves by the stockholders at a regular meeting, at which the transaction of such business was not only legitimate, but necessary, as a condition on compliance with which alone the association was to be permitted to resume and continue its business as a bank. The bank was in a condition of open and notorious insolvency. It was in the actual control of an examiner appointed, by the Comptroller of the Currency, so far as lawful, for the express purpose of ascertaining its true condition, in order to determine the question whether it might be permitted, on any conditions; to resume business, or whether it should be required to go into liquidation, by the appointment of a receiver to wind up its affairs. These facts were .certainly known to the plaintiff in error, or, at any rate, were so notorious that he cannot be permitted to allege ignorance of them. A regular meeting of the stockholders was called by public notice, given in the usual form, for the election of directors and the transaction of any other business that might be brought before them. At this meeting official communication was made that, according to the determination of the association and of the Comptroller of the Currency, the increased and paid-up capital stock of the bank had been fixed at $961,300, and that the whole amount of it had been lost; that it was necessary to replace it by an assessment of one hundred per centum on the par value of all the shares in order to enable it to resume and carry on its business, and that otherwise it would be placed in the hands of a receiver and required to go into liquidation.

Section 5205 of the Revised Statutes provides that: “Every association which shall have failed to pay up its capital stock, as required by law, and every association whose capital stock shall have become impaired by losses or otherwise, shall," within three months after receiving notice thereof from the Comptroller of the Currency, pay the deficiency in the capital stock by assessment upon the shareholders pro rata for the amount of capital stock held by each. ... If any such association shall fail to pay up its capital stock, and shall refuse to go into liquidation, as provided by law, for three months after receiving notice from the Comptroller, a receiver may be appointed to close up the business of the association according to the provisions of section fifty-two hundred and thirty-four.”

It was in pursuance of these provisions of the law that notice was given by the Comptroller of the Currency to the stockholders of the bank, at this, their regular annual meeting, that they must either assess themselves and pay in.the whole amount of 100 per centum upon their capital stock, fixed at the sum of $961,300, or, in the alternative, go into liquidation. In pursuance of this notice, in full view of the facts, and with a presumed knowledge of the law, the stockholders, by a vote that was almost unanimous, assented to the first branch of the alternative, and, as a condition for being permitted to resume business, voluntarily voted the.- required assessment. The plaintiff in error, it is true, was not present at this meeting, but he had notice of its proceedings, and in pursuance of its vote paid the full amount of the assessment imposed upon him as the holder of sixty shares of the capital stock of the company.

In our opinion, it is not open to him now to say that he made this payment in ignorance of the facts, or in ignorance of the legal right which he now seeks to assert to avoid the obligation. His payment was voluntary; it was made either with actual knowledge of the facts, or with such opportunity and means of knowledge as, by the exercise of common diligence would have made him acquainted with the facts, and the payment made by him in conjunction with his co-stockholders was made upon a distinct consideration, whereby the bank in which he was interested was enabled to undertake anew its regular and active business. Such a course of action on his part must be construed to constitute a complete acquiescence in and ratification of the previous action of the association and the Comptroller of the Currency, in reference to the increase of the capital stock; and he cannot be permitted now to deny that he thereby became, and has continued to be, an owner of sixty shares of the capital stock of the bank fixed at the increased sum.

This conclusion is not weakened by the suggestion, made in argument, that these proceedings of the bank took place during the period when its affairs were under the supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency, acting through the examiner. Notwithstanding the suspension of its business while under his control, the association continued its corporate existence, and was competent to exercise corporate functions. The increase of its capital, the„ vote of the assessment for the purpose of restoring what had been lost, and the acceptance of the alternative proposed by the Comptroller of the Currency to avoid going into liquidation, were all exertions of corporate powers, which, under the circumstances, the statute expressly content plated and authorized. It is, therefore, not at all to the point that its assets and affairs were subject to the supervision of the bank examiner. Nor is the conclusion affected by the other consideration, also urged in argument, that the attempt to revive the business of the bank by means of the assessment proved unsuccessful and abortive. The association, through its directors and stockholders, undertook the task, and entered upon its accomplishment, and in doing so materially changed its relations to its creditors. The failure to prosecute its business successfully certainly cannot have the operation now claimed for it, of making illegal all that was done in the prosecution of the experiment. The hazard of failure must be presumed to have been in the contemplation of the stockholders when they consented to the risk, and the consequences of failure cannot now 'be shifted from themselves to their creditors.

The second ground of defence to the action at law is, in our opinion, equally untenable. The assessment imposed upon the stockholders by their own vote, for the purpose of restoring their lost capital, as a consideration for the privilege of continuing business, and to avoid liquidation under § 5205 of the Revised Statutes, is not the assessment contemplated by § 5151, by which the shareholders of every national banking association may be compelled to discharge their individual responsibility for the contracts, debts, and engagements of the association. The assessment as made under § 5205 is voluntary, made by the stockholders themselves, paid into the general funds of the bank as a further investment in the capital stock, and disposed of by its officers in the ordinary course of its business. It may or may not be applied by them to the payment of creditors, and in the ordinary course of business certainly would not be applied, as in cases of liquidation, to the payment of creditors ratably; whereas under § 5151 the individual liability does not arise, except in case of liquidation and for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the bank. The assessment under that section is made by authority of the Comptroller of the Currency, is not voluntary, and can be applied only to the satisfaction of the creditors equally and ratably. If the claim in the present case were allowed, it would follow that in every case payments made by stockholders, for the purpose of restoring the impaired capital, would be considered as credits on the ultimate individual responsibility of shareholders, and the whole efficiency of the provisions of § 5151 for the protection of the creditors of the company at the time' of liquidation would be destroyed. The obligations of the shareholders under the two sections are entirely diverse, and. payments made under § 5205 cannot be applied to the satisfaction of the individual responsibility secured by § 5151. Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143.

But, it is said, in the third place, as the ground of relief under the bill in equity, that while this may be the result of a strict application of technical law, there remains to the complainant an equity which entitles him, by some process of substitution, to apply the payment which he has made under § 5205 to extinguish his liability under § 5151. So far as can be gathered from the allegations of the bill, the facts found, and the argument of counsel, this equity is supposed to rest upon the facts that the money paid by the stockholders under, the assessment was in fact applied to the satisfaction of the debts of the bank; that such application was intended by the appellant when the assessment was paid; and that he paid it in the belief that it would exonerate him from further liability as a stockholder, induced by representations made to him to that effect by others interested in the affairs of the bank. Whatever hardship there may be in the circumstances of the case, we are unable to discover any ground of equitable relief. If the assessment was applied by the officers of the bank to the satisfaction of its debts, there is nothing to show that it was done ratably, as required by § 5151. The assessment was not paid by the stockholders for the purpose of effecting a liquidation of the affairs of the bank, but was understood to be the price paid for the privilege of continuing its business, in the hope of saving their invéstment. If it was paid under a mistaken supposition that, in the event of future failure, nothing more could be required of them, there is nothing to show that the shareholders wrnre led into the mistake by any misrepresentations either of fact or of law on the part of the creditors for whose benefit the receiver is now acting. The mistake, if any, is one for which each shareholder is alone responsible.

On the whole, we are constrained to conclude that the defences at law and the alleged ground of relief in equity are alike insufficient, and that the judgment and the decree of the Circuit Court must be

Affirmed.

Mills v. Butler, Receiver. Taunton Savings Bank v. Butler, Receiver. Charlestown Five-Cent Savings Bank v. Butler, Receiver. Morrison v. Butler, Receiver. Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Mills v. Butler, Receiver. Taunton Savings Bank v. Butler, Receiver. Charlestown Five-Cent Savings Bank v. Butler, Receiver. Morrison v. Butler, Receiver. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. The cases in which Harvey Mills, The Taunton Savings Bank, The Charles-town Five-Cent Savings Bank, and Charles E. Morrison are respectively appellants and plaintiffs in error v. Peter Butler, Receiver of the Pacific National Bank of Boston, depend upon the same facts, and are governed by the decisions in the cases wherein John P. Delano is appellant and plaintiff in error against the same defendant. The judgments and decrees in these cases, respectively, are, consequently, also

Mr. George F. Hoar and Mr. Benjamin AT. Johnson, for plaintiffs in error and appellees.

Mr. A. A. Banney, for defendant in error and appellee.