Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1876-01-26
TnE BANK OF CAILFoRNIA.

rmE Rank or CALIFORNIA.
Judge Sawyer. ON Monday last. rsn-
dered his decision In the case OF Worm
ser Brothers ". the Bank OF California.
The action was brought TO snjoin the
collection OF an assessment recently
levied upon the stock Of the bank and
to restrain the lsvyins Of further ssssss-
ments and the sale Of delinquent stock.
During the pendsncy Of the suit a tenn
rorary restraining order had been grant
ell, which was reseinded BY the decision.
The main poin. urged BY plaintiffs MAS,
that whereas BY ths statutes under which
the bank Was incorporated. only q I'VE
per cent. assessment on the stock could
DO levied; the Directors had no power
undsr the Law TO transfer the existence
Of the corporation TO the civil code and
levy an assessment Of ten per cent,
claiming In consequence that the recent
levy was unauthorized. and that no sale
Of delinquent stock could legally follow.
From an abstract Of the decision ublishsd
in . San Francisco exchange welsarn that
lodge Sawyer decided in favor Of the
baak on every point and accordingly
denied the injunction and Dissolved the
restraining order. He ruled that the
election Of the Directors 10 continue
the existence Of the corporation under
tho Civil Code was perfectly legal and
valid. and that the ven per cent. ASSESS
m,nt was consequently authorized.
After pointing out that the law required
the unanimous consent Of the Directors
Of . corporation 70 change existence
from the statutes TO the Civil Code.
Judge Sawyer explained that not only
did the entire Board OF Directors Of the
Bank Of California decide upon the
change. bot for the purpose Of special
security and protection they had OBJ
tanned The written endorsement Of their
action Of the majority Of the stock
holders. This fact was proved BY the
joint sladavit Of Thomas Brown. the
cashier. s. Franklyn. the Secretary. and
the Directors. that out Of $1,000 shares
that composed the capital Of the Bank.
the holders Of 1900 had signed . pa.
Per in favor of the action Of the Direc-
tors. and that Of the remaining 5000.
I.5oo shares we're tied up in litigation.
and the other 1900 belonged to The &C.
tatss Of deceased psrsons. 1t was evil
dent therefore. that the Law had been full.
ly obsysd BY representatives Of the Banh
and thai there was no causs Of action.
So long o. the fundamental business Of
an Institution was not changed. II was
, within the power Of any Board Of Di.
rscton 70 continue its existence under
the Civil Code and enforce all the
powers granted BY 1t. There had been
NO intsntion or effort ON the part OF the
Directors Of the Bank Of California TO
change the business purposes Of the
corporation. and all along they had fol.
lowed the strict line Of banking busi-
ness. II they had altered the business
character Of the institution the points
raised by the plaintiffs might hold good;
but as they had not. they had complied
in all essential particulars with the legal
requirements Of the case. Therefore,
in order to pay existing liabilities. they
had ample authority to levy ten per
cent. on all The Issued stock. and as a
legal consequences. TO sell any toe on
which the assessment might not DO paid.
Tho law Was complete in ITSELF and
when once an election had been made
) obligatory in all its parts. there could b
no legal reason 10 upsstit. This vas
ths ease in regard to the Bank Of CAL
,to,,,. .na =. an An. .et. OF The Di.