Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1885-02-27
AN INTERESTING CASE
A STATEMENT or THE FACTS AND PROCEED
MOS IN THE SUIT OF THE CITIZENS BANK
OF TOPEKA w = " pRooEg

STATEMENT or THE FACTS AND PROCEED
mos IN THE SUIT OF THE CITIZENS BANK
OF TOPEKA vs. T. W. BROOKS
We announced last week that Judge Wheeler had
directed judgment TO be entered for the defendant
IN the case Of The Citizens Bank vs. 4. W. Brooks
aud herewith.we give brief statement Of the case
which space did not permit In our last issue:
10 1872 bank was organized at Topeka, Kan, I'M
der the laws Of that state, tnown the Adams bank
OF when Geo H. Newman, formerly Of this place, was
made president large number Of the stockholders
Of this bank then resided IN Bratleboro, aud among
them was the late I. W. Brooks. In the summer Of
1873 Mr.. Newman, who desired 20 return East at the
request Of the Citizens bank OF said Topeka entered
into negotiations with the latter bank 10 sell to It the
assets Of the Adams bank 10 amount not exceeding
$4,000. These negotiations resulted in written
tract made July H. 1873, by the terms Of which the
ohcers OF the CtizeuE bank TO select paper to
the amount Of 1850 from tue assets Of the Adams
bank, and the remaining assets 70 be collected by
said Newman aud the affairs Of the latter bank closed
me directors OF the Citzens bank selected, under
this contract, notes aud obligations due the Adams
bank to the amount Of $4,000 took the same set
ioFth IN said contract without guarantee, and they
we're endorsed by Mr.. Newman, as president Of
the Adams oane without recourse. In the paper Sc
ected under the contract aud endorsed as above sta
ed was a note Of the Union Hotel company Of said
Topeka for the VI 5000. This note was renewed
when It became due, and tue renewed note made
payable 70 the Citizens bank, and the same not being
paid when II became due, suit was brought upon the
same, aud the Citizens bank defeated on the
ground that the directors Of the Union Hotel company
never authorized It's president tseKecute such note
The original note gwen for money which the Ad-
Ams uank furnished, aud which went into the build
ing oil SAID company; and tue Adams bank aud its on
GERS bad no notice that payment Of the would
ton.
The Citizens bank 10 1877 commenced suit against
Mr. Brooks to tue Of this note aud
terest thereon aud several months previous thereto
had commenced suits against other stockholders for
the same purpose. Before an action could be COM
menced against stakeholder, under the laws vi Kan
sAs It was necessary that the Adams bank should be
dissolved as corporation, and there being officers
OF this bank left In that state Arrangement was
made by which counsel were employed TO draw . petit
uon to the COURT other counsel were employed to
appear for the bank and admit the facts set forth in
the petition and In this they managed TO get the
Adams bank into court aud obtain decree OF dssolu
ton without the knowledge Of Its officers stock
holders.
When snit was commenced against Mr. Brooks to
recover OF him as q stakeholder the amount Of the
Union Hotel company note, an attorney who had APP
peared in the other suits also appeared for him. sup
posing be was authorized TO do So aud In December,
1881, Judgment vas obtained for the OF 50 $751;
l6. This judgment sent to Vermont, and a suit
was commenced thereon, made returnabe to the Sep
TENDER term 1855 II the county court for this coun
ty. and, upon motion OF the defendants counsel was
removed 10 the Circuit Court Of the United
the District OF Vermont A stipulation was entered
into 10 October last, by the parties waving Jury
trial and consentng that the same should be heard BY
Judge Wheeler At Btattieboro at such time be
should appoint.
At the hearing Of the case It appeared by the depo
suons OF the persons who acted counsel for Mr.
Brooks 10 Kansas that they were aot employed by
him aud never had any correspondence or communi-
cation Win MIN until alter said judgment obtain
ed II further appeared IN evidence that Mr. Brooks
never employed any counsel in said Kansas suit or
authorized counsel to be employed by Auy Que IN his
behalf: that he never resided Kansas and had no
real or personal property 10 that state and that he
did not know that suit pending against him In
divdualy until be learned that judgment had been
obtained against bim. The Judgment, at the rate Of
Interest thereon allowed under the laws Of Kansas
amounted to about $4,000.