Where the stockholders of a savings bank are bound upon their stock subscription in double the amount of the stock, the liability does not differ from that imposed upon ordinary bank stockholders; it is not a penalty or a forfeiture.1 It has been held that the liability could not be enforced while the original stock subscription was unpaid.2 The original stock subscription can be collected as in the case of any other corporation. It is an asset of the corporation which passes to the assignee of the bank; 3 but while an assignee appointed by a court under a statute is in possession of the assets, it is held in one court that a creditor cannot maintain a creditor's bill.4 Where a savings bank is insolvent a court of equity may order all stockholders joined in an action which is brought for the determination of the stockholders' liability and a general settlement of the bank's affairs.5 But a petition by stockholders charging that the bank is insolvent and that assessments will be made upon the stock by officers for their own gain, but charging no fraud or breach of trust, is bad for want of equity.6

36 Wilkinson v. Dodd, 41 N. J. Eq. 566; Paine v. Barnum, 59 How. Pr 303.

37French v. Redman, 13 Hun, 502. If the act is forbidden by law the question of the officer's negligence is immaterial. He is liable for the loss. Williams v. McKay, 46 N. J. Eq. 25.

38 Williams v. McKay, 46 N. J. Eq. 25.

39 Leffman v. Flannigan, 5 Phila. 155.

40 Ridenour v. Mays, 40 Ohio St 9.

As to proof of no incorporation, see In re Gibbs, 157 Pa. 59.

41 Maisch v. Savings Fund, 5 Phila. 30.

1 Queenan v. Palmer, 117 III 619.

2Herron v. Vance, 17 Ind. 595. And a joint action was held not to lie at law against all the stockholders.

3 See Sec. 61, ante.

4 Brown v. Folsom, 62 N. H. 527. See also Schoyer v. Creswell, 3 Mac-Arthur, 5.