UOBIieT V. THaTEB. 739 �the dîscovery or relief prayed,or to any relief toucWng any of ihe matters and things alleged; second, thatit appears by the bill that the assignees in bankruptcy and the corporation are neeessary parties, and that they are not joined. �Dues from corporations shall be secured by individual liability of the stockholders to an additional amount equal to the stock owned by each stockholder, and such other means as shall be provided by law ; but such individual liability shall not apply to railroad corporations, nor corporations for religious or charitable purposes. State Const. art. 12, § 2. Appropriate allegations are contained in the bill that the property of the company is insufficient to pay their debts, and that an assessment for that purpose was made by the district court, — the debts ardounting to $100,000, while the assets do not exceed the sum of $12,000; that the payment of the assessment was successfully resisted by the respond- ents because not seasonably enforced, which litigation was the cause of the delay in filing the present bill. Three prin- cipal propositions are submitted by the complainants, as fol- lows : First. That suit may be maintained by virtue of the provision of the constitution already referred to, without ref- erence to the statutes of the state providing specifie modes of enforcing the liability of the stockholder under special cir- cumstances. Second. That the liability in question is an independent, absolute liability, co-existent with the corpora- tion; that it is in the nature of a contract, assumed by the stockholder when he became the owner of any portion of the capital stock of the company. Third. That the statutes of the state make provision for enforcing the constitutional lia- bility of the stockholder, which is applicable in cases where the corporation is dissolved ; that such statutes do not create a ne^ or different liability from that established by the con- stitution, but are passed in aid of that provision, to remove any doubt which might arise as to the enforcement of the same after the corporation is dissolved. �Enough appears in the constitutional provision itself to show that the view of the complainants, that the article is self- enforcing, cannot be sustained. It ordains that "dues from ����
