Cobpobation—Liability of officebs.—The liability, of directors and officers of corporations, for indebtedness in excess of the capital stock, imposed by the general corporation law, is to the creditors as a whole, and not to any individual creditor for his debt, and such liability can only be enforced in chancery.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county, the Hon. William H. Sntdeb, Judge, presiding.
Mr. Charles W. Thomas, for appellant;
that the general incorporation act does not affect corporations existing before its passage, cited Rev. Stat. Chap. 32, §§ 16, 49; Chap. 131, §§ 1, 6; Gross’ Stat. 1871, Chap. 25, § 110.
The charter of a private corporation is a contract: Donworth v. Coolbaugh, 5 Clark, 300; Ireland v. Palestine, etc. Co. 19 Ohio St. 369.
An action at law will not lie: McRae v. Locke, 114 Mass. 96; Horner v. Herring, 93 U. S. 228; Turpin v. Haines, 10 Chicago Legal News, 74
Mr. Thomas G. Allen, for appellee;
that an action at law would lie, cited Sangamon Co. v. City of Springfield, 63 Ill. 66; Chitty’s Pl. 106; Culver v. Third Nat. Bank, 64 Ill. 528; Dazier v. Thornton, 19 Ga. 325; Butler v. Walker, 80 Ill. 345; Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 525; Corning v. Hosner et al. 1 Comst. 58; Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 243; Burr v. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 557; Paine v. Stewart, 33 Conn. 516; Norris v. Johnson, 34 Md. 485; Bassett v. St. Albans, 47 Vt. 313.
As to the constitutionality of the statute: Cooley’s Con. Lim. 375; O. &. M. R. R. Co. v. McClellan, 25 Ill. 140; G. & C. U. R. R. Co. v. Appleby, 28 Ill. 283; C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Reidy, 66 Ill. 43.
Liability of others with defendant "should have been pleaded *203in abatement: Lurton v. Gilliam et al. 1 Scam. 577; 1 Chitty’s Pl. 46; Puschel v. Hoover et al. 16 Ill. 340; Ziele v. Ex’rs of Campbell, 2 John’s. Cas. 382; Rev. Stat. 93.
The record admissions of a party are an estoppel, and he cannot introduce evidence to rebut them: 1 Greenl’f’s Ev. §§ 22, 186, 205; Stribling v. Prettyman, 57 Ill. 371; Hensoldt v. Town of Petersburg, 63 Ill. 141.
Baker, J.
In this case we are of the opinion that the Circuit Court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and a judgment entered in this court in favor of appellant and against appellee for costs of suit.
Our reasons for reversing this judgment are the same as those set forth in an opinión filed at this term in the case of William C. Buchanan v. Bartow Iron Company. [Ante p. 191.]
Judgment reversed.
Tanner, P. J., dissenting.