An individual stockholder is not empowered to bring suit to dissolve a corporation on ground it is an illegal trust. Quo warranto is the remedy.

Coquard v. Nat. Linseed Oil Co., 171 Ill. 480.

Injunction will not lie at suit of a stockholder to restrain street railway company from paying annual license fee on cars, imposed by City Council.

Byrne v. Chicago Gen'l Ry. Co., 169 Ill. 75.

Stock holder knowing director is unlawfully receiving salary and consenting, has no remedy.

Brown v. DeYoung, 167 Ill. 549.

Stockholders may begin suit in equity to cancel stock unlawfully issued-must notify corporation to sue before beginning suit.

Stebbins v. Perry County, 167 Ill. 567.

Mandamus is proper remedy by stockholder who is refused right to examine corporate books.

Stone v. Kellogg, 165 Ill. 192 (203).

Bill lies to compel issue of new stock where original stock is cancelled on a forged assignment.

Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, 164 Ill. 323.

Failure or refusal of the officers to protect the rights of a stockholder gives him a right to begin action in his own name -when.

Farwell v. Great Western Tel. Co., 161 Ill. 522.

Stockholder in building and loan association may begin action for a receiver-Attorney-General may intervene after receiver has been appointed, but only to forfeit the charter. Broadwell v. Inter Ocean H. & L. Ass'n, 161 Ill. 327 (336).

Stockholders may begin action against the corporation and officers where such officers deal fraudulently with the corporate property. Demand for relief not required where it would be ignored.

Green v. Hedenberg, 159 Ill. 489 (493).

Where demand upon directors to bring action to protect stockholder would be ignored, it is not required before a stockholder or one interested may start an action.

Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 I11. 311 (344).

Settlements made by managers or directors, as to matters in which such officers have an interest adverse to the corporation, may be questioned in an action by stockholders.

Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 Ill. 301 (362-375).

Any stockholder may begin suit in equity against directors or officers who are misappropriating corporate funds or property. Corporation should be joined as party.

Bruschke v. N. Chicago S. Verein, 145 Ill. 433.
Wheeler v. Pullman I. & S. Co., 143 Ill. 197.

Bill by a stockholder under Section 25 must allege facts to bring the action under the causes named in the statute.

Wheeler v. Pullman I. & S. Co., 143 Ill. 197 (209).

Majority stockholders may not by their own votes sell the corporate property to themselves to the injury of minority holders. The latter may sue to set aside the sale.

Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 Ill. 320.

Majority stockholders may vote on any policy as they will, even to winding up the corporation, but may not wantonly or fraudulently destroy minority holders' rights.

Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 Ill. 320 (334).

Stockholder who is sued by a creditor on unpaid stock may file cross-bill to bring in others whose stock is not paid up.

Young v. Farwell, 139 Ill. 328.

Stockholders have an equitable right to have the corporate property managed according to the charter and in case of dissolution sold and the proceeds distributed.

Union Nat. Bank v. Byram, 131 Ill. 92 (100).

Stockholders may sue in their own names for misappropriation of funds or to prevent same, where the corporate officers

refuse to protect the corporate property. No demand required when it would be ignored.

City of Chicago v. Cameron, 120 Ill. 447.

Incompetent as witnesses-When.

Stockholders are incompetent as witnesses in an action by the corporation against an executor. (Section 2, Evidence Act.)

Albers Commission Co. v. Sessel, 193 Ill. 153.

Liabilities of.

Rules as to.

Kelley v. Fahrney, 242 Ill. 240.

Moore v. U. S. Barrel Co., 238 Ill. 544.

Venner v. C. C. Ry. Co., 236 Ill. 349.

Richardson Fuel Co. v. Seymour, 235 Ill. 319.

Where a husband conducts a business in his own name, though it is in fact owned by his wife, and incurs indebtedness, and afterward transfers such business to a corporation in which his wife holds forty-eight shares, himself one share, the entire stock will be liable for such indebtedness.

Story & Clark v. Kropsch, 231 III. 419.

Where three persons organize a corporation, one taking all but two shares, the stock issued to said first person being "fully paid and non-assessable," but issued in payment for certain patent rights not yet secured and of questionable value, and said first persón transfers a portion of his stock to third parties as a bonus for their taking bonds issued by the corporation, such third parties will be liable on such stock for the par value of same on an action begun by creditors of the corporation, under Section 25 of the Corporation Act, to hold stockholders for the indebtedness of the company. The fact that stock was given as a bonus, held sufficient to put them on notice to inquire as to value of the stock and the consideration paid for it.

Gillett v. Chicago T. & T. Co., 230 Ill. 373.

A purchaser of non-assessable stock from an original subscriber will not be held on a suit by creditors unless he had notice of irregularity or of the insufficiency of the consideration paid for the stock.

Gillett v. Chicago T. & T. Co., 230 Ill. 373.

The fact that a creditor knew that stock is not fully paid for, although issued "fully paid and non-assessable," does not estop such a creditor from his remedy against holders of unpaid stock under Section 25 of the Corporation Act.

Gillett v. Chicago T. & T. Co., 230 Ill. 373.

Where a new corporation is organized under an old charter, the original subscribers for stock are not released from their liabilities, even though there is an agreement to that effect, made at the time of such reorganization.

Hladover v. Paul, 222 Ill. 254.

Proceedings against stockholders under Section 8, Corporation Act, to collect unpaid balances, are separate suits.

Garden City Sand Co. v. Am. Crematory Co., 205 Ill. 42 (48). An agreement of a corporation to buy back stock does not relieve stockholders from liability for the full value of the stock -as to creditors.

Olmstead v. Vance & Jones Co., 196 Ill. 236 (241).

A trustee, holding stock for others, will be held as a stockholder when such trusteeship does not appear and the stock was issued to him directly. He must cause his trust relation to appear upon the corporate books.

Sherwood v. Ill. T. & S. Bank, Receiver, 195 Ill. 112.

Stockholders who are sued and forced to pay funds wrongfully paid to them, have an action against stockholders not sued, for a pro rata.

Singer v. Hutchinson, 183 Ill. 606.

Under the Illinois Corporation Act action against stockholders must be in equity; but where foreign States give an action

at law, a stockholder of such foreign corporation may be sued at law in Illinois.

Bell v. Farwell, 176 Ill. 489 (498).

Stockholders' liability under the laws of Kansas in a corporation organized there may be enforced in Illinois-when. Bell v. Farwell, 176 Ill. 489.

Liability of stockholders to creditors under laws of Kansas. Bell v. Farwell, 176 Ill. 489.

Stockholders are liable for unpaid balances on stock held by them, even after they have assigned it. (Section 8, Corporation Act.)

Sprague v. Nat. Bank of A., 172 Ill. 149 (165).

Stockholder's liability on stock held in a foreign corporation is determined by the law of the State where the corporation was organized; but the stockholder may be sued for assessments, where he resides.

Mandel v. Swan Land Co., 154 Ill. 177.

Action in Illinois to recover against stockholders of a Kansas corporation under a special Kansas statute. Relief denied. Special statute enforcible in State where enacted, only.

Fowler v. Lamson, 146 Ill. 472.

A special statutory remedy given against stockholders in Kansas cannot be enforced against stockholders of a Kansas corporation who reside and are sued in Illinois.

Fowler v. Lamson, 146 Ill. 472 (480).

Stockholder's liability on stock must be determined by the law of the State where the corporation was organized.

Young v. Farwell, 139 Ill. 328.

Stockholders in a de facto corporation cannot deny their liability when.

Bushnell v. Con. Ice Machine Co., 138 Ill. 67 (72).

Stockholders and their assignees are liable for unpaid balances on their stock. Assignees are never relieved of liability to pay until payment has been once made.

Alling v. Wenzel, 133 Ill. 264.