The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-12


twenty additional shares of said stock, which they
have also assigned but temporarily hold at request Of
said Miller and Morrison. w. FL. MORRISON.
SAMUEL MILLER.
Would these two contracts have been signed
by Morrison and Miller as individuals, binding
them personally, aud binding no one else, II
they were then acting as trustees and were buy
ing the stock for the Indiana Banking Company
NO. That is contrary to reason. Men do not
act that way.
Now, let US GO little further. Let US intro.
duce another item of evidence Here it is, and
It, came out OF. the tin box, William A. Ketcham
to the contrary, and 1T is the note for $342, 0OO
1t IS Exhibit *" 1t, too is signed by William
ID Morrison and Samuel Miller as individuals
E9hi1a *"
$342, 700. INDIANAPOLIS, Ind, Feb. 81 1873.
On demand, after date, we promise to pay to the
order Of j. g New and J. G. Wright, negotiable and
of indianapolis Ind Three Hundred and Forty two
Thousand and Seven Hundred Dollars, with 10 per
cent interest after maturity until paid, and per
cent. attorneys fees. Valae received. Without any
relief whatever from valuation appraisement laws
The drawers ard indorsers severally waive present.
ment for payment protest and notice OF protest ana
non-payment of this note, and all defenses on the
ground Of any extension of the time of its payment
that may be given by the holder holders of them or
either Of them. w. ii. MORRISON,
SAMUEL MILLER
Endorsed as follows]:
Paid on the within note Eighty-fve Thousand Dol,
lars (Ss5 00Ol; and, also. Ninety seven Thousand
Seven Hundred Dollars 1897, ZOO.
Paid on within note One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($IOO, O0O) March i, 1878
July 81, 1878. Paid by taking up Hanway S
$40 600 and McCutcheons $50, 900 notes.
/ want to ask you this question: Do you
suppose that if William II. Morrison and Sam
uel Miller were acting as trustees for the In
diana Banking Company, they would have made
themselves individually liable for $342 600 with
out scratch of a pen between them and the
Indiana BANKING COmOany
were trustees9 This is al individual liability.
Suppose the night after Miller and Morrison
made this note and the night after
this stock was transferred and assigned,
shat every member of the Indiana
Banking Company had died: Who could JohT,
G. New and John c. Wright have collected this
note froml Could they have gone to the In
diana Banking Company and said: Here, pay US
Morrison and Miller's noter Gould they have
gone into any court in Christeudom and have
sued the Indiana Banking Company on that
note? The Court will tell you, if the Court in
structs you at all the subject that they
ment of that note, except William H. Morrison
and Samuel Miller, and their personal estates
Mr.. CLAYPooL-Let me put to you PROPOSE
tion-it is The only time | have interrupted
you-suppose the holder of that note
had filed complaint alleging it
was given in consideration of certain
stock purchased for the Indiana Banking Com
pany, and that A, B, G and others were mem
bers of the Indiana Banking Company. Suppose
they had proved that would not they have recov-
sred judgment against every one of theml
MIR. BUTLER-I will answer that by saying
this: Suppose they had been put upon the stand
and compelled to swear to the truth, and they
swore that Mr.. Morrison, when he bought the
stock, told them he was not buying it for the In
diana Banking Company
MR. CLAYPCoL--But that is not the PROPOSE
ton. My proposition is this: If / were to buy
anything of you, don't what, and hold out
30 k6arT h..xrs fnn
ally and it should afterward turn out bought it
for Caypool and Ketcham. could not you sue
both Claypool and Ketcham2
MR. BUTLER-Yes, sir; but if it was to turn
that, at the time of the sale, Mr. Claypool had
told me- II am not buying this for anybody else,
nobody else is interested in it," and
/ had conceded that question, I would
have thereby estopped myself against
afterwards claiming that Claypool and Ketcham
made the purchase. Even if could sue Clay
pool and Keteham, in the supposed case, itdoes
not follow that they could sue me in regard to
that supposed trade.
Mr.. CLAypooI-That proposition is one of
fact, and not of law.
Mr. BUTLER-It is both of fact and law. It
is not simply proposition of fact 1t is a prop
osition of law and fact; and say that in Clay
POOLS supposed case, if the facts were as have
stated, would be estopped. If you come to me
and buy of me, and tell l am not buying for
Claypool and Ketcham, but l am buying for
myself-Claypool, am to hold Mr. Claypool
responsible and no one else. Suppose New and
Wright had gone into court and tried 70 hold the
Indiana Banking Company, then what would
the Indiana Banking Company have done?
They would have said: "Gentlemen, there is
not an account on our books anywhere pretend
ing to show that there was any connection
between that trade and this bank" The list
NATL" in pencil, on page IS of their ledger, had
not been put OF that book then; there was not
scratch of pen, and is not to this day, on the
Indiana Banking Company's books, that there
ever was a transaction in which Mr..
Morrison and Mr.. Miller figured as trustees for
the Indiana Banking Company; not one. There
is not among the papers of the Indiana Banking
Company any declaration of a trust ever existing
between Morrison and Miller and the Indiana
Banking Company, and Judge Claypool knows
that to be the fact. He knows that there is not
scintilla of proof on the books, or among the
papers of the Indiana Banking Company. from
first to last, to show any trust whatever between
Morrison and Miller and the Indiana Bank ing
Company. But gentlemen suppose, as Mr.
Claypool says, that Mr.. New and Mr.. Wright
had tried to hold the Indiana Banking Company;
the Indiana Banking Company would have
pulled out on them certain $40, 150 note. Here
it is; will read it. 1t is Exhibit L."
Exhibit ~"
S7o,l5O INDIANAPOLIS Ind, March 4, 1878.
On demand after date we promise to pay to the
order of Indiana Banking Company, negotiable and
payable at the Office of the Indiana Banking Company
of In dianapos Ind, Seventy Thousand One Hundred
and Fifty Dollars, value received, without any relief
whatever from valuation appraisement laws. The
drawers and ndorsers severally waive presentment
for payment protest and notice of protest, and
payment of this note, and all defenses the ground
of any extension of the time of its payment that may
be given by the holder holders to them either Of
them. Amount of notes used to pay j. c. New and
j. 9. Wright for stock in First National Bank.
w. II. MORRISON
SAMUEL MILLER.
The Indiana Banking Company would have
" --sxt.l
are not bound for it 1t is true Morrison and
Miller came to our bank and BORROWED OF US
$40, $50 of notes, but they gave their note to
our bank for them; here is the note, signed by
Morrison and Miller in their own Names Now,
gentlemen, if there was trust if it is true that
Morrison and Miller were buying that stock for
the Indiana Banking Company, when they went
and got from the Indiana Banking Company