Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U.S. 629 (1935)
Broderick v. Rosner
No. 528
Argued February 15, 1935
Decided April 1, 1935
294 U.S. 629
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF
ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY
Syllabus
A statute of New Jersey (Corporation Act, § 94(b)) provides that no proceeding may be maintained in the courts of that State to enforce a stockholder’s statutory personal liability arising under the laws of another State except suits in the nature of
an equitable accounting for the proportionate benefit of all parties interested, to which such corporation and its legal representatives, if any, and all of its creditors and all of its stockholders shall be necessary parties.
The Superintendent of Banks of New York brought an action in a New Jersey court against 557 New Jersey stockholders of a New York bank to recover unpaid assessments levied upon them pursuant to the banking laws of New York. The bank had altogether 20,843 stockholders and more than 400,000 depositors and other creditors, many of whom resided elsewhere than in New Jersey. The court held the action barred by the New Jersey statute; suggested that leave might be granted to file a bill in equity pursuant thereto.
Held:
1. The New Jersey statute, as here applied, effectively denies to the Superintendent the right to resort to the courts of that State to enforce the liability of stockholders residing there; the complaint conformed to the New Jersey practice, and the action would have been entertained but for the statute. Pp. 639-640.
2. The nature of the cause of action brings it within the scope of the full faith and credit clause; the subject matter is not such as permits considerations of local policy to dominate rules of comity. P. 643.
3. That the assessment was made under statutory direction by an administrative officer does not preclude the application of the full faith and credit clause. P. 644.
4. That the administrative determination of the assessment made in New York may be subject to collateral attack does not justify the New Jersey court in refusing to take jurisdiction of the Superintendent’s suit. P. 646.
5. Question whether Superintendent’s determination as to the propriety and amount of the assessment are conclusive not decided. P. 646.
6. The full faith and credit clause require that the action of the Superintendent in this case be entertained. P. 647.
113 N.J.L. 305; 174 A. 507, reversed.
Appeal from a judgment affirming a judgment sustaining a motion to strike out the complaint in an action brought in the Supreme Court of New Jersey by the Superintendent of Banks of New York to enforce an assessment levied on stockholders pursuant to the banking laws of New York.