The theory of the bill, as stated by plaintiffs’ solicitors, is correct, viz.: That the assets of an insolvent corporation are a trust fund for the benefit of all the creditors, to the extent, at'least, that the directors, while it is under their management, cannot appropriate the assets thereof to the payment of demands due to themselves individually, to the exclusion of other creditors and by way of preference to themselves. Starting with that proposition, the next inquiry is concerning securities pledged prior to insolvency to secure the individual demands of directors and others-^-demands existing and to accrue for money loaned. The facts as shown by the evidence are not so clear as they ought to be; for it is evident that the enterprise was carried forward upon an understanding that the principal *804creditors of the former establishment should furnish funds for the new, resting for their security upon the solvency and property of the company in common with all other creditors, and also upon the insurance fund, especially pledged for their advances and money loaned. The principal defendants in this case being creditors when the prior milling establishment was destroyed by fire, chose to embark in the new enterprise, instead of receiving that insurance fund. It is not necessary to comment upon the violation of the national bank law committed by some of the defendants in investing the funds of their banks and engaging in operations not authorized by their charters. This case, however, shows the wisdom of the United States laws on that subject; but it cannot depend upon or be controlled by any such considerations.
Was the pledge of the insurance policies, under the facts and circumstances, a valid and subsisting pledge in favor of the parties in interest, entitling them to appropriate the proceeds thereof, as was done? The cases cited, notably Casey v. Cavaroc, 96 U. S. 467, turn upon the actual delivery of the pledge for the benefit of the pledgee, so as to avoid secret preferences and pledges to the detriment of other creditors. Where bills of exchange, promissory notes, etc., as in that .case, are alleged to have been pledged, there should be some evidence thereof by Vay of indorsement or assignment, without which the pledgee could not recover thereon. Such bills, notes, etc., are a part of the assets of the pledgeor, and subject to the payment of his debts, unless validly transferred. How is it with policies of"insurance? They are no part of the security for general creditors, except so far as assets therefrom may become assets of the company or pledgeor after the contingency happens, viz., loss by fire. If policies are. taken out by creditors for their own benefit, or if, to secure present and pro- • spective creditors, the debtor agrees to take out such policies and does so for the benefit of prescribed creditors, no fraud is practiced on other creditors. It is a matter of daily occurrence that creditors require their debtors to insure their property and assign or pledge the same as security. They are not willing to trust the event of the debtor’s solvency if his property is destroyed by fire, and hence exact z such security in addition to his personal liability. In the absence of such an arrangement the creditor may well be supposed to rely upon his debtor's -ability to meet his liabilities, irrespective of the contingency by fire. The debtor was not bound to insure, and if he did not, the creditor had no recourse except upon his remaining assets. If he did insure, and the proceeds thereof became a *805part of his general estate, they became subject to the demands of his creditors, equally with other assets. But if the insurance was made, not for the general benefit, but solely or primarily for the security, of a specified class of creditors, by agreement with them, why should not the transaction bo upheld; and by what legal or equitable right could the unsecured creditors claim that they should share in such securities?
The question, however, in this case is as to the pledge of the policies and their renewals for the purposes alleged. There was no formal assignment, and no consent of the insurance companies to such assignments. The original policies were placed in the hands of Nulsen for the benefit of specified creditors, and as changes occurred the renewals w'ere placed in the hands of Capen and McLean, that they might cause those securities to be kept alive for the purpose of the original pledge. When the fire occurred and the amount of losses was collected, the sums so collected would necessarily have to be paid over to the pledgeors, to the amount of their demands secured. The fact that the creditors were directors, and the company, pledgeor, and directors were the trustees for the benefit of said creditors, cannot affect the good faith of the transaction, if the agreement to pledge existed at the time of the advances, and the creditors were within the terms of the pledge. Other or general creditors who had not taken such securities have no ground of complaint. There was no preference, within the admitted rule, but merely an enforcement of securities. Hence the allotment of the policies of insurance as pledged, does not fall within the inhibited act. There is a difficulty as to the bill of sale and mortgage made after the fire to the Fourth National Bank. If its prior advances fell within the terms of the pledge, it had a right to its pro rata compensation from the proceeds of the insurance; but it seems that it did not rely upon that fund. It took for overdrafts and new advances, after the fire, a bill of sale and mortgage for these demands, which, as the company was insolvent, the directors had no legal authority to grant, that bank being a stockholder and representative in the directory. Hence the bank must account to the plaintiffs for their pro rata of the proceeds of such bill of sale, and of the mortgage which it received.
The decree will be that said Fourth National Bank be hold to account for and pay over to the plaintiffs their pro rata of the securities acquired by said bank after the fire occurred,—the bill being *806retained as to other parties to abide the result of said preference to said bank. The amount for which said Fourth National Bank is liable under this ruling being undetermined, an order will be entered, unless the parties agree to said amount within 10 days herefrom, to refer the same to Thomas G-. 0. Davis as special master, to hear testimony and report to the court said amount.