Statement of case.

ment of dividends on the plaintiffs' or on any of the guaranteed or construction stock which was authorized to be issued by the said company as aforesaid.

Further facts appear in the opinion.

James Matthews and Edward S. Rapallo for appellant. The contract between the purchaser of the stock and the company is that contract contained in the wording of the certificate. (Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 180; McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 id. 593, 601; Wilson v. Dean, 74 id. 531; Henry v. The Great Northern Ry. Co., 3 Jur. [N. S.] part 1, 1137; Taft v. The H. P. & F. R. R. Co., 8 R. I. 310; Stevens v. The South Devon R. R. Co., 12 Eng. L. & Eq. 229; Crawford v. The North-eastern Ry. Co., 3 Jur., part 1, 1093; Sturges v. The East U. R. R., 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 406; Miller v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co., 24 Barb. 329; Miller v. Travers, 8 Bing. 244; Sanderson v. Piper, 5 Bing. N. C. 425; Reed v. Prop. of Locks, etc., 8 How. [U. S.] 274; Sargent v. Adams, 3 Gray [Mass.], 72.) The court erred in finding as a fact that the shares of stock, upon which the plaintiffs sue, are a portion of the $3,000,000 issue of 1857, upon which the nonpayment of dividends has been proved, there being no evidence of the identity of the plaintiffs' stock with a part of the issue. (Putnam v. Hubbell, 42 N. Y. 106-112.) The court erred in giving plaintiffs judgment for the amount of dividends unpaid during the whole period from 1857 to 1863, in view of the fact that plaintiffs' testator did not become owner of the stock until 1862. (Hyatt v. Allen, 56 N. Y. 553; LeRoy v. The Globe Ins. Co., 2 Edw. Ch. 656; Hill v. Newechawanick Co., 8 Hun, 459; 71 N. Y. 593; Jones v. Terre Haute, 29 Barb. 353, and 57 N. Y. 196; Van Wicklen v. Paulson, 14 Barb. 654.) A court of equity possesses no general visitorial powers over corporations, except such as are expressly conferred by statute. (Latimer v. Eddy, 46 Barb. 61; Karnes v. Roch., etc., R. R., 4 Abb. [N. S.] 107; Bangs v. McIntosh, 23 Barb. 599; Howe v. Dennel, 43 id. 505; Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 id. 666-8; Atty.-Gen. v. Bk. of Niagara, Hopk. Ch. [2d ed.]

Statement of case.

412; State of La. v. Bk. of La., 6 La. 745; Brown v. Monmouthshire Ry. Co., 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 118; Jackson v. Newark R. R. Co., 2 Vroom [3 N. J.], 277; Rex v. Bk. of Eng., 2 Barn. & Ald. 620; Karnes v. Rochester & Gen., 4 Abb. [N. S.] 107; Howe v. Peckham, 6 How. Pr. 232; Cropsey v. Sweeney, 27 Barb. 310; Madison Ave. B. Church v. Same, 26 How. Pr. 72; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. The Supervisors of N. Y., 32 id. 359; Livingston v. Hollenbeck, 4 Barb. 10; Craig v. Hyde, 24 id. 313; Kempsall v. Stone, 5 Johns. Ch. 193; Hatch v. Cobb, 4 id. 559; Pfeer v. Kissam, 3 Edw. Ch. 129.) The consolidation, although made with the permission of the various States, constituted nothing more than a species of copartnership of the various corporations, and this defendant is in the nature of a firm, and cannot be sued as one individual. (Farnum v. The Blackstone Canal Co., 1 Sumner, 46; Bk. of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 588; Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black [U. S.], 295; Racine & M. R. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Trust Co., 49 Ill. 331; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. [4 Otto] 444-7.) The plaintiffs are now precluded and estopped from recovering sums of money which should rightly be distributed as dividends, or go to the benefit of those who are now the common stockholders. (Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 184; Coles v. The Bk. of Eng., 10 Ad. & Ellis, 437; Rickard v. Seares, 6 id. 474; Manufacturing Bk. v. Hazzard, 30 N. Y. 226; Prendergast v. Turton, 1 Younge & Collyer, 98; Nichols v. Leeson, 3 Atk. 573; Currie v. Goold, 2 Mad. 163; Matthews v. The Great Northern R. Co., 5 Jur. [N. S.], part 1, 284, 290; Stafford v. Stafford, 1 DeGex & Jones, 193.) The acts of the legislatures of the several States through which the railroads mentioned in the pleadings and proofs in this action run are, so far as they relate to, provide for, or authorize the consolidation of the railroads in the adjoining States, in violation of subdivision 3 of section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States. (Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. [4 Otto] 13.) The laches and acquiescence of plaintiff's testator

Statement of case.

operated as a bar to this action. (1 Wait's Actions and Defenses, 152, 153, 198.)

Lucien Birdseye for respondents. This action did not involve the internal affairs of a foreign corporation in any such way as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. (Da Costa v. Jones, Cow. 729.) The Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Railroad Company had lawful authority to issue the guaranteed stock in question, and to confer upon and attach to it the privileges claimed by the plaintiffs in this action. (Prouty v. The M. S. & N. I. R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 663; Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 181; Davis v. Prop'rs of Meeting House in Lowell, 8 Metc. 321; Bates v. Androscoggin & Kennebeck R. R. Co., 49 Me. 491; Rutland, etc., R. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536; Williston v. M. S. & N. I. R. R. Co., 28 Penn. St. 321; Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76; McLaughlin v. Detroit, etc., R. R. Co., 8 id. 100; Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v., City of E., 15 Ind. 395; Haselhurst v. Savannah R. R. Co., 43 Ga. 13; Totten v. Tison, 54 id. 139; Kent v. Quicksilver Co., 12 Hun, 53; 78 N. Y. 159; Howell v. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 51 Barb. 378; Bailey v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 17 Wall. 97; 1 Dillon, 174; Harrison v. Mexican R'y Co., 12 Eng. [Moak's Notes] 793; Sturge v. Eastern Union R'y Co., 7 De Gex, McN. & G. 158; Matthews v. Gt. N. R'y Co., 5 Jurist [N. S.], part 1, p. 284; Corry v. Londonderry & En. R. R. Co., 29 Beav. 263; Matter of Anglo-Danubian Steam Nav. Co., L. R., 20 Eq. 239; Matter of London India Rubber Co., L. R., 5 id. 519; Matter of Bangor, etc., Slab Co., L. R., 20 id. 59; S. C., 13 Eng. [Moak's Notes] 606; Matter of London Permanent Building Co., 17 Weekly, 513; affirmed, 21 L. T. [N. S.] 8; Redfield on Railways, § 237; Field on Corporations, 136; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 145.) The rights of the holders of this guaranteed stock against the corporation issuing it were created at the time of the creation of and agreement to issue the stock. (Kortright v. Buffalo Com. Bk., 20 Wend. 91, 94; 22 id. 348; Bank of

Statement of case.

Attica v. Manuf. & Traders' Bk., 20 N. Y. 501; Ormsby v. Vt. Copper M. Co., 56 id. 623; Hughes v. The Same, 72 id. 207; Presbyterian Congregation v. Carlisle Bk., 5 Barr. [Penn.] 345; Slaymaker v. Bank of Gettysburg, 10 id. 373; Bates v. Androscoggin & Ken. R. R. Co., 49 Me. 491; Davis v. Prop. of Meeting House in Lowell, 8 Metc. 321; Ellis v. Essex Merrimack Bridge Co., 2 Pick. 243; Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 id. 90, 98; Field v. Pierce, 102 Mass. 261; Richardson v. Vt. & Mass. R. R. Co., 44 Vt. 613; Bailey v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 1 Dillon, 174; affirmed, 17 Wall. 96; City of Ohio v. Cleve. & Toledo R. R. Co., 6 Ohio St. 489; Pittsburg & C. R. R. Co. of Alleghany, 63 Penn. St. 126; Agricultural Bk. v. Burr, 24 Me. 256; Agricultural Bk. v. Wilson, id. 273; Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 15 Mass. 93, 101; Merchants' Bk. v. Cook, 4 Pick. 405; Evansville,. etc., R. R. Co. v. City of Evansville, 15 Ind. 395; Davis v. Bk. of England, 2 Bing. 393; Taylor v. Midland R. Co., 28 Beav. 287; Sloman v. Bk. of England, 14 Sim. 775; Ashley v. Blackwell, 2 Eden, 299; Hoagland v. Bell, 36 Barb. 57; Phonix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294; Mechanics' Bk. v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 13 id. 599; Ketchum v. Stevens, 17 id. 499; McCready v. Ramsay, Prest., 6 Duer, 574; Stevens v. South Devon R. Co., 9 Hare, 313; S. C., 21 L.. J. Ch. [N. S.1 316; 12 Eng. L. & Eq. 229; Sturge v. Eastern Union R. Co., 7 De Gex, McN. & G. 158; S. C., 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 406; Crawford v. N. E. R. Co., 3 Kay & J. 723; S. C., 3 Jurist [N. S.], part 1, p. 1093; Henry v. Gt. N. R. Co., 3 Kay & J. 723; S. C., 3 Jurist [N. S.], part 1, p. 1117; S. C., 1 Kay & J. 1; 3 Jurist [N. S.], part 1, p. 1133; S. C., 1 De Gex & Jones, 606; Mattheus v. G. N. R. Co., 5 Jurist [N. S.], part 1, p. 284; Corry v. Londonderry & E. R. Co., 29 Beav. 263; Harrison v. Mexican R. Co., L. R., 19 Eq. Cas. 358; S. C., 13 Eng. R. 793 [Moak's Notes]; Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76.) The annual reports of the M. S. & N. I. R. R. Co., and the annual reports of the defendant corporation were properly admitted in evidence. (London, B'r

Statement of case.

& S. C. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 3 Exch. 320; 6 Railway Cases, 177; Phil., W. & B. R. R. v. Howard, 13 How. [U. S.] 307; Eastern Union R. Co. v. Cochrane, 24 Eng. L. & Eq. 495; Ind., Cin. & Lafayette R. R. Co. v. Jones, 29 Ind. 465; C. C. & J. C. R. R. Co. v. Powell, 40 Ind. 374; King v. Mothersell, 1 Strange, 93, citing Thetford's Case, 12 Vin. Abr. 90, pl. 16; King v. Martin, 2 Camp. N. P. 100; Bretton v. Cope, Peake's Cases, 30; Turnpike Co. v. McKean, 10 Johns. 154; Wood v. Jefferson Co. Bank, 9 Cow. 194, 205; Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420, 423-4; Baptist Church v. Mulford, 3 Halst. 182; Gray v. Turnpike Co., 4 Rand. 578; Duke v. Cahawa Nav. Co., 10 Ala. 82; Hall v. Carey, 5 Ga. 239; Ryder v. Alton & Sangamon R. R. Co., 13 Ill. (3 Peck), 516; Citizens' Passenger R. Co. v. City of Phila., 49 Penn. St. 251; P. W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Howard, 13 How. [U. S.] 307; U. S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460, 470; American Fur Co. v. U. S., 2 Pet. 358, 364; Franklin Bk. v. Steward, 37 Me. 524; Smith v. Palmer, 6 Cush. 513, 520.) The dividends on the guaranteed stock in question are cumulative; that is, if not regularly paid from time to time, they accumulated as arrears. to be paid afterward, before any dividends were paid upon the common stock. (Lindley on Part. 655*; Stevens v. South Devon R'way Co., 9 Hare, 313; 21 Alb. L. J. Rep. Ch. [N. S.] 816; 12 Eng. L. & Eq. 229 [S. C.]; Sturge v. The East Union R'way Co., 7 De Gex, McN. & G. 158; S. C., 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 406; Crawford v. The North-eastern R'y Co., 3 Jur. [N. S.] part 1, p. 1093; S. C., 3 Kay & J. 723; Henry v. Great N. R'y Co., 3 Jur. [N. S.], part 1, p. 1117; S. C., 1 Kay & J. 1; 3 Jur. [N. S.], part 1, p. 1133; S. C., 1 De Gex & Jones, 606; Matthews v. The Gt. Northern R'y Co., 5 Jur. [N. S.], part 1, p. 284; Corry v. The Londonderry & Enniskillen R. Co., 29 Beav. 263; Coey v. Belfast & County Down R. Co., Irish Rep., 2 C. L. 112; Smith v. Cork & Brandon R. Co., ubi supra; Matter of London India Rubber Co., L. R., 5 Eq. Cas. 519; Matter of Bangor & Port Madoc Slate & Slab Co., L. R., 20 Eq. 59; Melhado v. Hamilton, 21 Wend. 619; Williston v. M. S. & N. I. R. R. Co., 13 Allen, 400,