•WILLIAM S. POPPLETON, Appt.,
v.
SUMNER WALLACE et al.
(See S. C. Reporter’s ed. 245.)
National banks — stockholder’s liabll-
Notb. — On the enforcement of statutory lia¬ bility of stockholders in national banks — see note to Williamson v. American Bank, 52 C.
C. A. 6.
743
245-247
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct. Term,
ity _ Valid obligations of a national bank
may, after voluntary liquidation, Ue enforced against a stockholder who voted against the resolutions looking towards such liquidation, where the requisite amount of stock was voted in favor of that course.
[No. 194.]
Argued and submitted March 6, 1906. De¬ cided April 2, 1906.
APPEAL from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Cir¬ cuit to review a decree which affirmed a de¬ cree of the Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska in favor of complainant in a suit by the holder of a note given by a na¬ tional bank to enforce the statutory liability of its stockholders. Affirmed.
See same case below, 68 C. C. A. 40, 135 Fed. 286.
Mr. Richard S. Horton argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Mr. J. M. Woolworth submitted the cause for appellees. Mr. R. 8. Hall was on the brief. For their contentions see their brief as reported in Wyman V. Wal¬ lace, ante, 738.
Per Mr. Justice Brewer:
This case is also an appeal by a stock¬ holder from the same decree, and presents only this difference: This stockholder voted against the resolutions passed by the stock¬ holders, looking to a voluntary liquidation. There is, therefore, nothing of a personal es¬ toppel to be adjudged against him, but we do not think that that is material. The requisite amount of stock was voted in favor of what was done in the way of voluntary liquidation, and he, as a stock¬ holder, is bound by that, although person¬ ally he dissented from the action. The same decree of affirmance will be entered in this case.