The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-04-20
Vice ChancellOr's Court.
Before Vice Chancellor McCoun.

DECISION.
March 10 -Edtcard Boirgirsrd VS.. John Delafeld, Prssi-
den, of the Neto York Banking Co and others.-This was
a motion for an injunction on the New York Banking
Company, and the appointment Of q receiver. In 1889
the Company agreed to loan the fernando Railroad CO.
pany, Mississippi, 00,000, payment for which was to be
made in cotton, to be shipped to Mr. Delofeld. Joachim
Hydecker, agent for the house of Boz aft, Boirgirard s.
Co, o fHavre, agreed with the New York Banking Com.
pany to advance the 5000, 900 to latter, and have the cot.
ton sent to said house at Havre. He advanced 500 900.
the Company being responsible for such; but only 1872
bales Of cotton were sent, when the Mississippi Company
failed in its contract: A very small amount Of money
a balance Of SOC, 1000 to 500, 600 remains due to Bonafi
B%oirgirard & Co, of which house complainant YVES a
| member. He petitions for an Injunction on the bank on
the ground that it had failed in pay ing him his money;
has ceased to DO business; lit has been closing up for
some months) did not make proper re turn to the Legisla.
ture agreeable to law. and in lis return placed a de6ot for
$4,000, due by Mr.. Hubbard, President Of the Columbus
Insurance Co. Ohio, down as a portion Of its good assets,
but Immediately after W ards took sac, 1000 in pay ment for
the debt. Petitioner AYERS, also, that the directors have
expressed an intention Of placing the bank in other and
strange hands, but even II they do not, justice TO the
creditors require the appointment Of a receiver, as Mr..
Delafeld himself is indebted to the company in a large
amount, being something like 500 900. The petition is
creditor Of the company, his contract having been
signed by the President alone, whereas the law r, quires
that such contracts should be signed by both President
and Cashier. The stockholders also aver that the Com.
pany is not insolvent, and will be able to pay all dc mands
against it, and have a handsome. surplus, provided the
bank does not 60 into the hands OF a receiver. The Vice
Chancellor, in giving his decision, sho wed that this
cour, had poverty law over the Free Banking institu-
lions, treatng tnem u = Interpretations. AS 10 tne ONJfC-
ton that The contract is signed only by thu president, he
thought it might stand as a defence in an action at law,
but did not think this court, in its powers Of equity,
bound by it. The contract was evidently made by MIR.
Dslsfeld on behalfofthe bank, which was to get a profit
on the sales ofcotton sent to Havre, and actually received
the money from complainant. Independent of tn sit
had failed in making a proper return Of its condition
agreeably to the law Of 1871, which requires all free
banks to present a return'inJanuary giving their situation
then, and also their condition in the July previous. This
isl wh~olesomeaaw, and one which they should strictly
be held to. and a way by which the free banks may be
made useful and safe to the public.
The Court considers the complainant entitled to come
in as a creditor. Ordered, that the Injunction be allowed,
and a rec eiver appointed.