Case ID: walker_4/html/0316-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TEXTER’S APPEAL.
    In a suit against the officers of a bank, the corporation is a necessary party.
    The remedy against bank officers given by the Act of Incorporation must be followed, and an ordinary bill in equity will not lie against them.
    No. 278 January Term, 1880. Appeal from Common Pleas Pleas of Berks County. In Equity.
    This was a Bill in Equity brought by Daniel Texter and •other depositors in the Reading Savings Bank, against the President, Directors, Cashier and Assignees of the Reading Savings Bank, charging them with mismanagement, neglect, &c., whereby the bank became insolvent, and asking that they account and pay to complainants the losses occasioned by their neglect, &c. Defendants demurred to (he bill as, 1, multifarious: 2, deficient in certainty; 3, because the Reading Savings Bank was not made a party; 4, because the statutory remedy under the Act of May 11, 1855, P. Laws, 632, is exclusive, and ousts the jurisdiction in Equity.
    On February 9, 1880, the Court dismissed the bill. Texter then appealed to the Supreme Court.
    
      W. H. Livingood and H. Y. Kauffman, Esqs., for appellant,
    argued that defendants owned all the stock of the bank, and it was not necessary to make the corporation a party; Leffman vs. Flanagan, 5 Phila., 155; Maisch vs. Saving Fund, 5 Phila., 30; Lancaster vs. Evans, 4 Beavan, 655; Bousher vs. Watkin, 1 Ross & Mylne, 227. This proceeding is against the officers of the bank, and the Act of May 11, 1855, P. Laws, 632, provides that the stockholders shall be individually liable. This proceeding is against defendants for a fraudulent insolvency; Maisch vs. Saving Fund, 5 Phila., 30; Leffman vs. Flanagan, 5 Phila., 155; Wright vs. Davenport, 66 Penna., 148.
    
      Messrs. H. Van Reed, H. A. Yundt, A. B. Wanner, D. & J. N. Ermentrout and George F. Baer, Esqs., for appellees,
    argued that no bill was ever sustained where the corporation was not made-a party; Robinson vs. Smith, 3 Paige, 232; Cunningham vs. Pell, 5 Paige, 612; Hersey vs. Veazie, 24 Maine, 9; Forbes vs. Whitlock, 3 Edw. Ch., 446; Smith vs. Hurd, 12 Met., 371; Allen vs. Curtis, 26 Con., 456; Craig vs. Gregg, 83 Pa., 19; McAleer vs. McMurray, 58 Penna, 126. The statutory remedy under the Act of May 11, 1855, P. Laws, 632, is against the stockholders, and under the Act of April 16, 3850, P. Laws, 492, and April 12th, 1867, P. Laws, 71, is against the officers and directors, and is exclusive of any other remedy; Mean’s Appeal, 85 Penna. 78.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Common Pleas on March 14th, 1881, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

The dismissal of the bill below was right for many reasons. The corporation, the Reading Savings Bank, was a necessary party to such a bill. But supposing the defect of the bill, in that respect remediable, we are of opinion that the statutory remedy under the Act of April 16th, 1850, P. Laws, 492, and the supplements thereto, was ample, adequate and exclusive.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.