Russell v. Co
Russell v. Co
Russell v. Co
Co
Citation: 113 Cal. 258
Date of Decision: June 8, 1896
Origin according to syllabus: American Case
Doctrine:
Where a statute creates a right and prescribes a remedy for its enforcement, that remedy is
exclusive. Where a liability is created which is not penal, and no remedy is prescribed, the
liability may be enforced wherever the person is found. The procedure will, however, be entirely
governed by the law of the forum. If the law creating the liability provides for a particular mode
for enforcing it, the mode limits the liability. If it be a contract, the parties here contracted with
the understanding that they can be held liable in no other way. And such a liability cannot be
enforced in another state.
Facts:
Russell, a judgment creditor in California, filed a case against Pacific Railway Company and Los
Angeles Cable Railway Company for the appointment of a receiver for the sale of its property
and the sum due to its stockholders. Complaint in intervention was filed in behalf of other
creditors, they have no joint or common interests. They claim the right to join under the Statute
of Illinois. The Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois, recovered a judgment against Pacific
Railway Company for a sum of money and caused its execution which was returned nulla bona.
Upon the averment of insolvency, a receiver was appointed. Russell recovered judgment in the
superior court of Los Angeles county against Pacific for S1,048.48 and procured a receiver to
impound Pacific’s assets. Pacific was found to be insolvent. The trial Court found in favor of
corporation and shareholders. On appeal, the court affirmed saying that the Act did not create a
liability which is enforceable in California..
Issue:
W/N Statute of Illinois is enforceable in California Courts. —No.
Ruling:
As a general rule, where a statute creates a right and prescribes a remedy for its enforcement,
that remedy is exclusive. When a liability is created, which is not penal and no remedy is
prescribed, the liability may be enforced wherever the person may be found. The procedure is
governed by the law of the forum. The mode provided by law limits the liability. Under a
contract, it is understood that parties cannot be liable in no other way and such liability cannot be
enforced in another state. Sec. 8 of the Illinois Statute is a special remedy. The language is
unambiguous, and shows the construction given to the statute by the courts of Illinois.
Independently of this ruling, there is no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the Illinois
statute does not create a liability which can be enforced here. The intervenors, therefore, have no
standing as litigants in the case.