The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-10
LIABILITY FOR DEPOSITS.
An Additional Statement as to the
Recent Decision in Illinois.
Directors of Banks Responsible to Depos-
itors Under Certain Circumstances
The Grounds of the Decision.
Special to the indianapolis journal.

/
! SPRINGFIELD, H., April Son the 18th of
March dispatch from this city was pub
lished in the indianapolis Journal stating
the facts in an important decision rendered
| in the Circuit Court of Macoupn county,
this State, in which the directors of bank
at Bunker Hill, in that county, were held to
| be personally responsible to depostors for
| deposits received after the bank had become
insolvent, the liability being placed upon
common law principles, independent of
statutory provisions. The dispatch referred
to attracted wide notice, and was made the
| subject of an editorial paragraph in the
! Boston Daily Advertiser. 1t seems now that
law firm in Boston recently wrote to the
| clerk of the Macoupin Circuit Court for
more complete details of the decision, and
received the reply that no such decision had
been made in that county.
| This statement of the clerk being brought
to the attention of the representative of the
Journal he called upon Judge Henry S.
Green and F. w. Burnett, of this city, who
were the attorneys for the plaintiff Gardner
Case, of Bunker Hill, and asked them for the
facts. To statement of the clerks reply,
above mentioned, Judge Green said: There
can be no more doubt about the decision
than about the fact of our sitting here; and
regard it as one of the most important de-
cisions rendered by the courts in some time
If sustained by the higher courts, as l believe
it will be, the directors of banks will become
| something more than mere ornamental at
tachments to monetary institutions. drew
the declaration in the case, and think 1 I'M
derstand it."
AT this point Mr.. Burnett said: ave have
here the abstract and argument, and I will
dictate to you the substance of the
count on which the decision rests" and he
proceeded as follows:
1.-THE declaration in the case alleged the
defendants to be directors, or trustees, of the
| Bunker Hill bank, in Macoupin county;
| that as such directors, or trustees, it was
their duty from time to time to examine the
books, assets, ETC., of the bank, and thus be
| informed as to its solvency or insolvency.
and if iDsolvent to give public notice of such
fact; that at the time the plaintiff made the
| deposits in question the bank was insolvent,
| and that had the defendants performed their
duty, as above described they would have
known the fact of such insolvency. On the
| contrary, however, they, in ignorance of
facts which it was their duty to know and
after such insolvency, continued to hold
the institution out to the public as a
safe depository for money, in consequence of
which acts plaintiff made the deposits and
suffered the losses alleged whereby the de-
PENDANTS became liable to tine plaintiff in
damages for the amount of the loss sus-
tanned.
ITO this count there was a demurrer inter-
| posed, upon the ground that the facts alleged
n mo- 0hnuy Of oAi -,
defendants personally. After argument upon
the demurrer, the court took it under advise
meut, and after full consideration overruled
the demurrer and sustained the count"
Ex-Governor John NJ. Palmer, who appeared
for the defendants in the case, was not in the
city, but he is reported as understanding the
decision as stated above. He has not yet de-
cided whether to carry the case up on the
points of law, or proceed to a jury trial on
the facts. The bar here regard the decision
| as one of unusual Importance.