The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-05-23
The Courts.
OPINION OF JUDGE M'DONALD.

OPINION OF JUDGE NJ DONALD.
To the matter Of Robert Il. Dun
kerson & Co, in bankruptcy.
This case comes before me, on an
agreed statement OF facts, for decision
under the sixth section of the Bank
rupt Law
Dunkerson & Co., have been ad-
judged Ban krupts by a decree of this
Court; and Philo @. Decker has been
appointed their assignee. The parties
to the controversy IN this case are the
assignee and the Evansville National
Bank
The facts agreed on and certified
for my decision, are the following:
La January, 1865, the Evansville
National Bank was duly incorporated
under the act of Congress providing
fog the incorporation of National
Banks. The articles of Associate
. of the corporators contain this pro-
vision: The Board Of Directors
shall have power to make all bylaws
that it may be proper and convenient
for them to make under said act, for
the general regulation Of the business
of the Association and the manage
ment and administration Of its affairs
which bylaws may prohibit, If the
Directors so determine, the transfer
of stock owned by any stakeholder
who may be liable to this Association
either as principal debtor or other
wise. In pursuance Of said provi
sion the Board Of Directors, prior to
January, 1867, adopted the following
bylaw: No transfer of the stock
of this bank shall be made without
the consent of the Board of Direc-
tors by any stakeholder who shall
be liable to the bank, either as prin-
cipal debtor or otherwise; and certif
Gates Of stock shall contain upon
them notice Of this provision"
At the time of the organization of
the bank, DunkersOn subscribed the
articles Of association; aud paying In.
Sl3, 600, he then became the owner of
100 shares OF the stock at 500 per
share, worth $4,000. On the 18th of
April, 1867, Dunkerson procured the
bank to discount for him. a bill of ex-
change for $4,000, drawn by S. A.
Fowler & Co., on Watts, Crane & Co.
in favor of ID. &. Given, who Endorsed
it to Dunkerson 4 Co, who indorsed
! it to the bank. This bill fell due in
/ June, 1867 and has never been. paid
| The PR per steps as to its dishOnor,
notice thereof, &C., were duly taken.
/ Dunkerson continued to be the own
.er Of said stock till he became a bank
rupt. The certificate thereof con
tanned on its face the notice required
by said bylaws. After said assignee
was appointed DunkersOn, by in
( dorsement on said certificate, in due
form, assigned it to the assignee in
/ bankruptcy, who thereupon duly de-
manded the bank to transfer on its
cooks the said stock to him-which
/ the bank refused, on the ground of
/ Dunkerson S liability to the bank on
/ said bill of exchange.
I The question submitted for decision
on these facts is, whether, by reason
I thereof, the bank has lien on this
/ therefore entitled to object to the
transfer to the assignee.
The parties agree that if this ques-
4 ton shall be decided IN the afhrma-
I tive, the Court shall decree a sale of
the stock and the application Of the
proceeds to the payment of said bill,
with leave to the bank to prove the
residue owing on the bill as a claim
I on the general assets OF the Dank-
rupts. And they agree further that
/ if said question shall be DECIDED in
/ the negative, the Court shall decree
7 transfer Of said stock on the books of
/ the Bank to the assignee.
4 The point to be decided involves
two questions, namely: l. Had the
Board of Directors of the Bank due
authority to make the bylaw above
cited? ?, And if SO, does this by
law, on any fair construction of it.
create the lien insisted on by the
Bank? Let Us consider these ques-
tons. n
I. Had-the Board of Directors due
authority to make the bylaw in
question?
The 9Th section of the act of Con
gress under which this Bank was or
gained, provides that it shall have