ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.
The highest court of the State which incorporated the warehouse company and in which it is situated, has ruled, in a direct action against it, that it did not become indebted to the plaintiff by reason of its endorsement. The liability of the defendants is not primary and that of a debtor, but secondary and depends altogether upon a statute of that State of a penal character, which declares that, upon certain omissions of duty on the part of a trustee, he shall become responsible for the debts of the company. Can the Federal Courts ignore the decision of the Court of Appeals and, in fact of its unanimous opinion that the warehouse company is not indebted, compel the defendants to pay as a debt of the company that which has been thus decided to be no debt?Or, to state the proposition in another way: a statute of the State imposes a liability on a trustee for the debts of the company, of which he is trustee. The highest court of the State says there is no debt, and therefore no liability. Is it appropriate for this court to hold that there is a debt, and, by reason thereof, a liability? We are asked to enforce a statute of a State penal in its character, so far at least as the trustee is concerned, and, therefore, to be strictly construed, in a case in which its highest court rules that it ought not to be enforced. To the question as thus stated it would seem that there should be but one answer, and that the rulings of the highest court of a State as to liability under such a statute ought to be recognized in every court as at least most persuasive. That this statute is one of a penal character is settled, not merely be various decisions of the Court of Appeals of New York, but also expressly by this court in Chase v. Curtis, 113 U.S. 452, though as since held not "a penal law in the international sense." Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657.
It is, however, insisted by the plaintiff that there has been no final adjudication in the courts of New York in the action against the warehouse company, the order made by the Court of Appeals being simply to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial; that the question of liability or non-liability of the warehouse company to the plaintiff is, therefore, not res judicata; that the plaintiff has a right, if it has not already exercised it, of discontinuing that case, in which event there will be no final judgment either for or against it, and nothing to prevent its commencing a new action either in the courts of New York State or in the courts of any other State in which it can secure service of process on the company; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Broughton, 109 U.S. 121; Gardner v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 150 U.S. 349; that even if a final judgment had been rendered in the action against the warehouse company it would not bar the plaintiff or protect the trustee, for a judgment binds only parties and privies, and the trustee was neither a party to that action nor a privy thereto, Miller v. White, 50 N.Y. 137; that the question of the liability of the warehouse company to the plaintiff being thus still an open one, and depending not upon any statute or matter of local law but upon principles of general commercial law, this court is free to determine it according to its own judgment, and is not concluded by any opinion or ruling thereon by the state court.
It is further insisted that the Court of Appeals erred in its views of commercial law, and that while the presentation for discount by the maker of negotiable paper thus endorsed may suggest that the discount is for his own benefit, and that the endorsement is an accommodation endorsement, there is no conclusive presumption of law to that effect; that if the party discounting the paper makes no further inquiries, it is a mere matter of negligence, and that according to the rules laid down by this court negligence alone neither vitiates the title of the holder nor relieves any of the parties to the paper from the liability apparently assumed by their signatures thereto. We deem it unnecessary to determine this question. That the presentation for discount by the maker of paper drawn to his own order
and bearing the endorsement of another party does create a presumption that the endorsement is a matter of accommodation, is affirmed by the following among other authorities: Bloom v. Helm, 53 Mississippi, 21; Hendrie v. Berkowitz, 37 California, 113; Stall v. Catskill Bank, 18 Wend. 466; Overton v. Hardin, 6 Coldwell, 375; Lemoine v. Bank of North America, 3 Dillon, 44; Erwin v. Schaffer, 9 Ohio St. 43; 1 Daniel on Neg. Ins. § 365; 1 Edwards on Bills App. 105, § 104. On the other hand, the plaintiff refers to these authorities as tending to show that the presumption arising under such circumstances is not a conclusive one. Wait v. Thayer, 118 Mass. 473; Ex parte Estabrook, 2 Lowell, 547.
Section 12 of the act of 1848 is not in terms reenacted in the charter of the warehouse company. It is, as we have seen, a statutory provision of a penal character, and before any party can be held bound by its provisions it must satisfactorily appear that the legislation of the State has rendered him subject thereto. The contention is that section 9 of the charter of the warehouse company in effect incorporates said section 12 into such charter, but the provision of section 9 is that the corporation shall possess all the general powers and privileges and be subject to all the liabilities conferred and imposed upon corporations organized under the act of 1848. It is the corporation which is given the powers and privileges and made subject to the liabilities. Does this carry with it an imposition of liability upon the trustee or other officer of the corporation? The officer is not the corporation; his liability is personal, and not that of the corporation, nor can it be counted among the powers and privileges of the corporation. How then can it be contended that a provision in a charter that the corporation thus chartered shall assume all the liabilities imposed by a general statute upon corporations carries with it a further provision of such general statute that the officers of corporations also assume, under certain conditions, the liabilities of the corporation? Does one by becoming an officer of a corporation assume all the liabilities resting upon the corporation; is not his liability of a distinct and independent character and dependent upon other principles? It is said that this is a mere
question of statutory construction which has been settled by the Court of Appeals of New York in conformity with the views of plaintiff, but we do not so understand the scope of those decisions.
Wakefield v. Fargo, 90 N.Y. 213, is cited. In that case it appeared that the High Rock Congress Spring Company was organized under an act of 1863, chapter 63, which authorized three or more persons to incorporate in the manner specified in the act of 1848, heretofore referred to. Section 2 provided that "every corporation so formed shall be subject to all the provisions, duties, and obligations contained in the above-mentioned act, (the act of 1848,) and shall be entitled to all the benefits and privileges thereby conferred." Section 18 of the act of 1848 (3 Rev. Stat. 8th ed. 1958) made the stockholders "liable for all debts that may be due and owing to their laborers, servants, and apprentices for services performed for such corporation," and it was held that that provision became incorporated into chapter 63 of the Laws of 1863, and that the defendants, as stockholders in the spring company, were liable accordingly. The matter is not discussed in the opinion, but the conclusion is stated as above. It may be noticed, however, that the act of 1863, under which the spring company was organized, was entitled "An act to extend the operation and effect of the act passed February 17, 1848, entitled 'An act to authorize the formation of corporations for manufacturing, mining, mechanical, or chemical purposes;'" and contained but two sections, the first authorizing the organization of three or more persons into a corporation in the manner specified, etc., and the second being as heretofore quoted. And so it may well be that the Court of Appeals considered the act of 1848 as passing bodily into the act of 1863, and that all the ...