Turner

Appeal from a judgment against the defendants, Lord and Widaman, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiff and intervener are creditors of the defendant corporation, on judgments of date June 4, 1901, or later, and the suit was brought to sub ject to the payment of plaintiff’s claim the alleged subscription liability of the appellant defendants. The causes of action on which the judgments were rendered arose in the year 1901; but with regard to plaintiff’s cause of action, it appears from evidence introduced by him that part thereof was in renewal of a note of the corporation to him, of date October 4, 1900, for the sum of $500, given in lieu of a personal note of O’Bryan, who was president of the corporation. The certificate of incorporation was filed August 18, 1900. The capital stock of the corporation consists of five hundred shares of the par value of $100 each; of which the defendant Widaman and Bingham, the assignor of the defendant Lord, are named as having subscribed for ten shares each. One Bowan, who is named as a subscriber for one share, was originally a defendant in the case; but the suit as to him has been dismissed. The other subscribers…

I concur specially in the reversal of the judgment and order. I do not think there is any analogy, however, between this case and the case of a creditor seeking to collect his debt from the debtor of his debtor by attachment. I am strongly of the opinion that the creditors may sue the stockholders of a bankrupt corporation directly and without any effort to compel an assessment by the corporation, and believe that the liability of the stockholders to such creditors .is several as well as joint, and that it is not necessary to join all the stockholders in such a suit. (Walter v. Merced Academy Assn., 126 Cal. 582 , [ 59 Pac. 136 ].)

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 29, 1905, and the following opinion was then rendered:

In denying such petition, it is proper to say that such portions of the opinion of said court of appeal as are devoted to the discussion of such questions as, it is said in the opinion, “must be determined with a view to the further proceedings in the case,” are concurred in by only two of the justices of said court of appeal, and, consequently, do not…