Case ID: ohio_2/html/0309-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Thompson v. Young and Wife, and Surviving Executors of J. M’Intire, deceased.
    Charter of a bank extended, and no new security taken of the cashier. Securities under the first charter not liable for defalcations under new charter. Judgment at law against three or four securities, in a suit where the fourth was no party. In bill for contribution, fourth security is not concluded.
    This case was reserved from Muskingum county. It was a bill in chancery to compel contribution, upon the following state of facts:
    In the year 1811, the Bank of Muskingum was incorporated, the charter to continue from its passage until January 1, 1818. The company was duly organized under this charter, and D. J. Marple appointed cashier. Isaac Vanhorn, Jeffrey Price, Samuel Thompson, and John M’lntire, executed with Marple, as securities, a bond in the penalty of twenty thousand dollars. And Marple proceeded to discharge the duties of cashier.
    Before January 1, 1818, the legislature passed a law extending the charters of existing incorporated banks, until January 1,1843, upon certain terms and conditions; and with these terms and conditions the Bank of Muskingum complied, and Marple was continued cashier, without either a new appointment or a new bond.
    In 1815, M’lntire, one of the securities, died. In 1819, Marple became a defaulter to a large amount; and suit was commenced against Marple, Vanhorn, Price, and Thompson, the surviving obligors, and judgment obtained against *them for the amount of the defalcation. At the trial no evidence was given of any default,before January 1, 1818. Thompson, the complainant, having paid one-third of the judgment, brought this bill against the devisees and executors of M’lntire for contribution. The facts were presented by a plea, to which the complainants excepted.
    Goddard, for the defendants, in support of the plea, maintained :
    That the securities could not be charged with any defalcation that took place, after the expiration of the first charter, undei which the appointment was made, and the bond given. He cited 2 Saund. 411; 2 Blank. 934; 3 Wils. 530; 1 Term, 291; 3 East. 484; 1 New Rep. 34; 2 New Rep. 175; 6 East. 507; 2 Camb. 422; 12 East. 400; 2 Maul. & Sel. 363; 2 Camp. 39; 2 Barn. & Al. 431; 1 Bing. 452; 2 Bing. 32; 9 Wheat. 720; 8 Mass. 275. He further contended that the judgment at law, against the complainants, did not conclude the defendants, who were not parties to that cause and had no agency in the defense made.
    No argument was presented on the other side.
   By the Court:

The authorities adduced by the defendants are conclusive that the securities were not bound for any defalcation that took place after the expiration of the first charter. And we hold them to be in accordance with the soundest principles of justice.

It is equally clear that the defendants can not be concluded by an adjudication in a case where they were not parties. The bill must be dismissed.