It is quite apparent that considerations of public policy induced the adoption of the double liability clause in the constitution of 1865, and equally apparent that, in the minds of the framers of the amendment of 1870, this provision had operated injuriously to the interests of the State, and that sound policy dictated its repeal. It is not difficult to see, with this provision in force, that great public improvements, in some of the States of the Union at least, could not be successfully carried on. Instead of inviting capital it would repel it. There are few persons who would consent to take stock in such enterprises, if subject to the double liability provision. Although willing to risk the loss of their stock, they would be unwilling to involve their estates beyond it. Especially would this be so if they were invited to take part in the completion of works greatly in debt, and which had languished for years. It is, therefore, important to determine, not only for this case, but all others similarly situated, whether the change of policy on this subject, as manifested by the change in the organic law, is effectual to accomplish the desired object.
The Supreme Court of the State having construed the amendment of 1870 so as to relieve stockholders in corporations, subscribing after it went into operation, from the effects of the former constitution, as to debts contracted prior to the amendment, the only question at issue here is, whether the amendment, thus interpreted, has the effect of impairing the obligation of the plaintiff's contract within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
It would serve no useful purpose to restate the views of this court on this general subject; nor to review the cases, which are neither few nor unimportant. It is enough to say that the law of the contract forms its obligation, and that legislation, which materially impairs the remedy, is void.
The law of the contract in this case undoubtedly gave the plaintiff the right to subject existing stockholders in the corporation, with whom the debt was contracted, to the double liability provision. This provision could be invoked so soon as the assets of the corporation were exhausted. The plaintiff trusted this corporation and the members composing it at the time the contract was made. It cannot be said that he gave credit beyond this, for what right had he to assume that other stock would be taken? It may be that he expected this would be done, and that thereby his security would be increased; but the obligation of a contract within the meaning of the Constitution is a valid subsisting obligation, not a contingent or speculative one. It was no part of the obligation of the contract that future stock should be taken. The value of it would be enhanced if this were done, but the obligation of it would be the same whether the stock were taken or not. If taken, it subjected the holder to the personal liability imposed by the law at the time of the subscription, and to the extent of this additional responsibility the plaintiff is benefited. But suppose no additional stock were taken, the plaintiff has all that he trusted, and has no right to complain that his contract is not as valuable as he thought it would be. If, then, the credit was given to the corporation, and the personal liability of the members composing it at the date of the contract, how does the repeal of the double liability clause impair the plaintiff's contract? It is true, while unrepealed, he had the opportunity to accumulate securities for the payment of his debt, but is this opportunity to be continued after experience has proved that the policy on which it rested was injudicious and should be abandoned? Such a doctrine would tie up legislation, in order that the speculative expectancies of creditors may be protected. It was the object of the national Constitution to protect rights, and not mere incidental advantages which may affect the contract indirectly. The incident of individual liability attached to and formed a part of the contract as long as it lasted, but its repeal did not deprive the plaintiff of any of the rights secured to him when the contract was made. They still exist, and the remedy to enforce them remains the same. If the corporation itself cannot pay, the members who composed it at the time of the repeal are unaffected by it, and there is nothing in the way of subjecting them to the double liability provision. Instead of the plaintiff being injured by the repeal, he is benefited by it, for it cannot be supposed that the defendant would have taken stock with the burden imposed by the old law, and the subscription made by it increased by capacity of the company to pay its debts very largely, as it is agreed that it owns eight thousand nine hundred and sixty shares of stock, each share being for $100. This stock was paid for and risked in the general enterprise, and, like other assets, liable for the debts of the company; but the plaintiff seeks to place upon the defendant a liability beyond this, which it cannot be believed it meant to assume, as the law did not impose the liability upon it when the stock was taken.
The plaintiff contracted with the Alexandria and Nebraska company, authorized to issue two millions of stock. In the absence of any evidence on the point, it is fair to presume the stock was absorbed when the contract was made. This corporation he trusted, and the persons who held its stock were undoubtedly liable to him in case he could not get his debt out of the company. He not only holds this security, but in addition to it the assets of the Iowa Southern Company, and the liability of the holders of one and a half millions of stock in it. Beside this he has the obligation of the consolidated company to pay his debt. It is difficult to see how these things have tended to impair his contract or lessen its value. But he seeks to increase his security by embracing the stockholders of the consolidated company, who were not parties to the contract to pay his debt, but who subscribed after the amended liability law went into operation. This he cannot do. His remedy under the law as it existed at the date of his contract is not impaired because the consolidated company increased its stock, as it was authorized to do, and was enabled to sell it by reason of the withdrawal of the burden of personal liability.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that the law under which his debt was contracted made all who were stockholders on the issue of the execution liable to contribute personally to the payment of his debt, and two cases in Missouri are cited to support this proposition. [1] These cases arose before the repeal of the law, and were controversies between the holders of stock when the debt was contracted and the actual holders of it at the date of the execution. It was conceded that one class or the other were liable, and the court decided that the liability attached to the stock, and followed it in the hands of the assignee, and that, therefore, those stockholders only were liable who were such at the date of the execution. This is the full force of the decisions referred to, and they give to the plaintiff the right to seek his remedy against any one who held stock subject to the incident of individual liability, at the date of the execution against the corporation.
But as the incident of individual liability has been repealed, and neither the law nor his contract makes the defendant liable for the debts of the company beyond the amount of its stock, it follows that the decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri on the point invoked are not applicable.
And so, doubtless, thought that court in its decision of this case, as the point is not noticed in the opinion.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Notes edit
- ↑ McLaren v. Franciscus, 43 Missouri, 452; Miller v. Republic Insurance Co., 50 Id. 50.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse