Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-30
THE BANK CASES.


benson presiding. The action is one OF elgh
cases by various parties against the stock
holders of the late Odd Fellows Savings ant
Commercial Bank The particular case OF
trial is that in which Mary M. Jackson il
plaintiff, for whom Messrs. Catlin, Edgertor
and Hamburger appear, with Messrs. Cad
walader, Hart and Deylin opposing. Th'
case is not the same recently reported IN thu
RECORD UNION, as on hearing before Judge
Williams, where Mr.. Smith, assignee of the
bank fled bill praying that he might rem
der an account and be discharged. In thai
case the merits of the case were not reached
in the late hearing, owing TO amendments e
the pleadings being necessary, and because al
the parties in interest had not been served
The present case is presumed to involve al
the facts of public interest relative to the
inner history and direction of the late bank
and all the affairs connected with It's winding
up, and its relation to the Peoples
Savings Bank-its successor. In this case
the plaintiff sets out in her complaint the ex.
istence of the Odd Fellows Bank as savings
corporation; the names of the stock
holders that the bank was In Septem-
Der, 1873, indebted to plaintiff in given sum
secured by the bank from plaintlf1, and an
agreement to repay with interest; that IL De-
ing requested, refused to repay; that s1ose-
quently in the late Sixth District Court plaln-
tiff recovered Judgment for the debt against
the bank, and that the same has not peen paiu
or discharged that on September 2, 1870 the
bank suspended and closed its doors. and has
not since resumed business. She asks JudS-
ment against defendants, in such several
amounts and proportions as the number OF
shares of stock in the corporation, owned by
the defendants, bears to the whole amount OF
the subscribed capital stock. The answer
set out that the capital stock was SOU, 0oO,
in shares of 800 each, and sets out the lndi-
vidual ownership of such shares. They deny
/ that any of the capital stock was at
any time subscribed for, or that the
subscribed stock was 997 shares, or any other
number of shares. They deny the indebted
ness to the plaintiff in all respects. That
defendants have no information to enable
! them to answer the allegation that the bank
was indebted to the plaintiff. They deny
that they owe plaintiff anything on the ac-
counts set out in the complaint. They allege
that the plaintiffs cause of action is barred
| by the provisions of Section 337 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, also of Sections $50 and
$780, They aver that the bank September Il,
1873, assigned its property to IL. q. Smith in
trust for its creditors and all persons having
claims against it, of whom plaintiff was one.
and that she has received from the assignee,
as the proceeds Of the sales of such assigned
property, 10 per centum of her alleged claim,
and that Smith has sufficient property of the
bank on hand to pay her an additional 50
per cent; that plaintiff claims to hold as Sc
curity for her demand lien by attachment
and Judgment against such property sufh.
Gent to satisfy the same /; that Smith has an
action pending against plaintiff to determine
whether plaintiff is entitled to full payment
or only a portion of the assets of the corpora
ton that plaintiff has answered in that suit,
and it can be held within two months, and the
result will be either that plaintiff receives IS
per cent. of her alleged claim or the full
amount that any sum received by plaintiff,
or the assigned property in hand, will dis
charge and satisfy the alleged claim against
defendants as alleged stockholders, or reduce
the same 80 per cent; that contrary to equity
plaintiff is seeking two satisfactions in money
of the same demand.
Defendants had sought continuance of
the case because of the tendency of the
action by Smith, but the Court held the case
can go on and that that plaintiff can have her
separate action Defendants then asked
leave to amend the answer by inserting
count that plaintiff has another suit pending
against the bank on which she got judgment;
that the same questions of fact were or
might have been Irrigated in that suit, and
also in that suit plaintiff had attached and
held sufficient property to satisfy her claim
therein and in this Overruled. To both rul
ings defendants excepted, as also to all rul-
ings admitting subsequent testimony Plaintiff
then introduced the articles of incorporation
of the bank, also the Judgment suit in the
case of the plaintiff against the bank. Also
the original subscription list.
H. G. Smith was then placed upon the
stand, and after proof Of the shares he held,
offer was made to prove by him tie number
of shares each or . certain stakeholder owned,
when defendants objected to the parol tes-
tirnony that it was not the best evidence,
and discussion sprang up between counsel as
to what is the best evidence, the original sub
scription list or the stock books, that drift
into what appeared an irrelevant view, and led
the Court to read some OF the counsel very
sharp lecture as TO wrangling at the bar, wind
ing up with threat to punish for contempt
of Court if it continued. A recess to 1850
P. NJ. was then had.
AT the afternoon session Of the Court, the
question to witness Smith was withdrawn.
Witness identified the original stock sub
scription list. w. +. Huntoon, late Teller
OF the bank, was placed on the stand. who
identified the signature of Mike Bryte to the
stock subscription book, also those of Adolph
Hebron, Chris Green and William Beck
man, also of J. L. Stoll, G. e. Tyrrell
and Charles Schwartz. Objection was taken
to proving the sign ature OF Mary j. Gregory,
as It was signed Mary J. Gregory by n. j.
GREGORY, her son, and exaninationw was made OF
books presented by witness to show that Mrs
Gregory by her agent voted at meeting OF
stockholders in 1875, and thus established her
exercise Of ownership OF stock. Witness was
permitted to read from minutes Of the Di-
fectors' meeting of February, 1879. to show
who were present; also stockholders meeting
of November, 1876. Defendants objected to
| both readings, as the dates were prior
to the date of the alleged debt
Objection overruled. Witness read to
show who were Directors at that time.
| Witness was called on for the dividend
books Of 1875 and 1876. and replied that he
could not find them. He was asked to exam
| inc the dividend book for 1877, to show that
the stockholders (defendants) were paid divi
dends, and witness was asked ii the bank did
not pay dividends each six months. Defend
ants objected as incompetent and irrelevant.
| An interesting question was then debated as
to whether the sverment in the complaint of
| indebtedness in September, 1878. is sufficient
of the accruing of the debt az to the
stockholders antecedent to September, 1878
The Court thought the proof eff who
we're stockholders September, 1878, might at
! least be made Defendants claimed that the
true rule is that the stockholders who are OF
record alone are responsible, and only those
who are such of record when the debt ac-
crued, and it is simply the misfortune of a
party il he cannot show who were so of rec
ord. Plaintiff said defendants counsel allege
that September, 1873, the stockholders and
bank were indebted to her, and yet offer to
prove who were stockholders in 1875. The
| Court said you could not well prove By the
books that one is a stakeholder on particu-
lar day without showing him to have
been such at time prior. The
offer he thought, could do no harm, but it
was not necessary to go back further than
1877. The Court said that there was a
broad difference in the views OF counsel IN
the case as to the liability of stockholders on
their subscription for stock. One side claims
that as soon as one subscIibes for stock be
becomes liable for the debts OF the corpora
ton to that amount. The other side says
no; but only to the amount paid H.. Ii
seemed to the Cont that all such questions
should be left for argument after the facts
were in, and he believed that any one
of the attorneys III ten minutes could
state all the facts there are In the case
exactly as they are, and that would advance
the case at once to argument as to the law
Were he party IN interest he thought ne {
be willing to have that procedure taken
After some remarks by counsel. it becam'
evident that no such speedy and simple sys
tenn could be agreed upon, and the Court di