of basic differences and disputes between Brayton and the corporation on the one side and appellants on the other.  The three contracts giving rise to those disputes were either executed by Brayton alone, or by him as an officer of the corporation.  He put up individually all of the money involved in all of the contracts, and he personally collected and receipted for all of the money deriving from them.  In the compromise agreement, he acknowledged in effect his ownership of the rights accruing to the corporation from the old contracts by joining in a conveyance of those rights to appellants.  The money theoretically advanced to the corporation under the compromise was weighted with limitations as to what the corporation could do with it;it could be used only as directed by Brayton and for his benefit; and the security provided for was for his benefit and protection.


59
Whether Brayton was using the corporation as a conduit through which his enterprises were carried out, or he was a partner or joint-venturer with the corporation in the business deals compromised in the compromise agreement, the result is the same.  Moreover, one of the chief considerations moving the appellants to the execution of the compromise agreement was the release under its terms of all of Brayton's individual claims against them.  By the expedient of omitting himself from the suit and directing its prosecution in the name of the corporation alone, he and his corporation created a situation under which the appellants would be