
    John Godley et al., Directors of the Cincinnati, Harrison and Indianapolis Straight-line Railroad Company, v. William H. Pugh.
    Where the directors of a railroad company, in pursuance of the statute (S. & S. 243), applied to the court for a decree dissolving the corporation, on the ground that the object of its creation had wholly failed or become impracticable, and it appeared to the court that the corporation had no property liable to execution for payment of the costs of the proceeding: Held, that it was not ei'ror in tho court to order that the directors should pay said cost, and that in default of such payment execution should issue against them therefor.
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
    The plaintiffs made application to the superior court, in pursuance of the provisions of the act of April 15, 1867 (S. & S. 243), for a decree dissolving the corporation, on the alleged ground that the objects of the corporation had wholly failed, aud their accomplishment become impracticable, and obtained a decree of the court accordingly. The proceedings were ex parte, no stockholders or others being made parties defendant, and during their pendency the cause was referred to the defendant in error, as special master, to make report of certain matters involved; and it appearing, by return of the sheriff upon an execution issued against the corporation, that it had no property liable to execution for the payment of the defendant’s fees as such master, it was ordered by the court that the plaintiffs should pay the same, and that, in default of payment, execution should issue therefor against them. This order it is alleged was erroneous, and leave is asked to file a petition in error to reverse the same.
    
      Hoadly, Johnson 8¡ Colston, for the motion.
    
      Wm. Disney, contra.
   By the Court.

We see no error in the order. The directors were bound to pay the costs by themselves incurred, as there was no other source from which they could be made. Before instituting the proceeding they should have seen that there was a fund for payment of costs, if they did not expect to pay them out of their own pockets. Whether they can reimburse themselves, by recourse upon the stockholders, or otherwise, is a matter with which we now have no concern. This is not a case where judgment for costs was recovered against trustees. They were merely ordered to pay their own costs. They were bound to pay the master, equally as they wTere bound to pay their attorney in the case.

Motion overruled.  