These cases are identical and will be considered together. They are actions at law by the “director of taxation and examination” and the “supervisor of banking” of the state of Washington against two stockholders of the “Scandinavian American Bank of Seattle, an insolvent state banking corporation of Seattle, Washington,” to recover the so-called “superadded liability” provided by the laws of that state. The questions raised by the demurrers are:

(1) Gack of jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the persons of the defendants.

(2) No legal capacity to sue.

(3) Misjoinder of parties plaintiff.

(4) General demurrer.

The action is based upon the statutes of the state of Washington, and the plaintiffs are public officials of that state. Section 35 of chapter 80 of the Gaws of 1917 provides:

Section 72 of the same act provides:

*995 " And section 62:

By a statute enacted in 1919 (Laws Wash. 1919, c. 209, § 1) the title of “bank commissioner” was substituted for “state bank examiner,” and in 1921 the powers vested in the bank commissioner were bestowed upon the “director of taxation and examination through and by means of the division of banking.” The latter amendment also pror vides:

Thus it will be seen that the Washington statutes are modeled upon the National Bank Act, 13 Stat. 99 . In construing these statutes, the Supreme Court of Washington has followed the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in construing the National Bank Act. The courts of the state of Washington have held that this liability is not enforceable by creditors, but by the proper officials, and accrues only upon the ascertainment by the officials that an assessment is necessary, requiring no allegation or proof of unpaid debts of the corporation. It is held, moreover, that the determination of the proper officials that an assessment is necessary is conclusive upon the stockholders, and not the subject of judicial inquiry. Hanson v. Soderberg, 105 Wash. 255 , 177 Pac. 827 . And, of course, this court is bound to follow the Supreme Court of Washington in the interpretation of its own statutes. Hopkins v. Lancaster (D. C.) 254 Fed. 190 .

It is urged, in the first place, that this court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, the statutes of Washington being purely local. But are they purely local ? They impose a liability upon stockholders of banking corporations, whoever they may be, and where-ever they may be found. There is no attempt to limit this liability to stockholders resident within that state. It is, of course, elementary, that every one embodies the statutes of the state in his contracts. When, therefore, a person residing in another state becomes a stockholder in a Washington bank, he agrees that he will be bound by the law of that state, which imposes this liability upon him. Such an agreement, like any other, is enforceable wherever the stockholder may be found. Thomas v. Matthiessen, 232 U. S. 235 , 34 Sup. Ct. 312, 58 L. Ed. 577 , holding that the stockholder’s liability created by the laws of California is enforceable in a foreign jurisdiction.

It is next contended that the court has no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants, because the complaint does not allege that they are residents of the district. This would be good, except for the facts that defendants have entered a general appearance. Western Loan & Savings Co. v. Butte & Boston Co., 210 U. S. 368 , 28 Sup. Ct. 720, 52 L. Ed. 1101 .

Thé defendants also urge that plaintiffs, being local officers, have no capacity to maintain an action for the statutory liability in a foreign jurisdiction. The law is not so impotent. These officers are *996 vested with jurisdiction to levy and collect, for the benefit of deposit tors and creditors, contributions from the stockholders. They are representatives of the bank and its creditors. As such, they partake of the nature of a statutory receiver. That such an officer can pursue the assets against one resident in a foreign jurisdiction is well settled. Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 516 , 27 Sup. Ct. 755, 51 L. Ed. 1163 .

The complaint, I think, states a cause of action. The demurrers are overruled.