Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1889-04-25
DISTRICT COURT NOTES.
rho Dakota Building and Loan
Association Under IN
.a. 81 - vestigat1on.
Charges OF Irregularity Against
Some of the Directors in
Their Duties. "'"
Four Prisoners in the County jail
Come Before Judge Rose
IL for Sentence.
District Court Notes

1Ol 0CACOASCs
District Court Notes
The court was occupied the whole of
Tuesday morning with the trial of the
\ actions brought by the Dakota Building
& Loan association against L. B. Miner,
J.W. Cloes, Anton Steinbach and Peter
Haas, the case being heard in chambers.
Nickeus and Baldwin are attorneys for
the association, and S. L. Glaspell for
the defendants The case will probably
occupy the whole of the day. The case
of l.. B. Miner was first taken up.
The complaint sets forth that certain
of these defendants were indebted to the
association in certain sums, and that at
an irregular meeting of these directors,
these parties were allowed to settle this
indebtedness for sum less than the full
amount due the association, contrary to
the interest Of the other investors. The
association therefor asks to have these
proceedings cancelled and set aside as
illegal and fraudulent.
In opening the case Mr.Nickeus stated
that he should prove that the meeting at
which the releases were ordered and de-
fendant relieved from obligation to
plaintiff, was Irregular, and that all bust
ness done thereat was void because there
was no notice given of this meeting as
required by the bylaws, and 1t was not a
regular meeting, as is shown by the min
utes. The board of directors consists of
eleven members, but only fiye were pros
ent at the meeting in question, and even
if a majority had been present their
action would not be legal unless the
others had notice given them SO that
they had chance to be present. Messrs.
Steinbach and Haas who were claimed
to have been present and voted as direc-
tors, thus making seven present and vot.
ing, were not legally authorized to act as
directors at that time because the meet
ing, at which it is claimed that they were
appointed to fill vacancies, was not
regular meeting, nor had the proper no.
tice been given of special meeting to
elect them. Therefore they were not
legal directors on April 10th, when this
fraud was perpetrated, and without them
there we're but five directors present. A
special meeting can transact no business
other than that for which it is called, as
stated in the notice. Moreover, the
plaintiff alleges furthur that even sup
posing that this meeting had been legally
called and held for this purpose, and
suppoeipp that there had been MAORI
ty Of the board present; yet borrowing
members of building association can
not force an inequitable settlement upon
the investing members. They are trus-
tees for the stockholders, and can not
therefore, without fraud, secure to
themselves advantages not common tc
other members. The board Of directors
had no power, even If all the meetings
atwhich these proceedings took place, had
been regular, to do an act which not only
disturbed, but destroyed the vested
rights of the stockholders, in order to
benefit themselves.
In defence it is claimed that these
meetings were properly called, and that
majority of the directors were present
and voted, believing that such action
was for the sbest interests Of the stock
holders. The defendant also denied thai
he was indebted to the association, IN
the sum of $1,000, as alleged in the com:
plant, and states that he never oweC
them more than S845, all of which he has
repaid.
He admits that at a meeting or
April 10th, a resolution was passed by
the directors setting aside and releasing
him from the provisions of an instrument
purporting TO be a mortgage on his
property, but he alleges that this mort.
gage was null and void because it hao
never been signed by his wife. He also
denies that there was any conspiracy or
agreement in regard to this resolution
which was passed by the directors in the
belief that they were taking the action
which would best serve the interests OF
the stockholders of the association. he
also alleges that this meeting was called
in regular and proper manner, and that
majority of the directors were present
and voted for the resolution and ne
therefore asks for Judgment with costs.
The greater part Of the morning ses:
sion was occupied with the testimony OF
l.. T. Hamilton who was formerly the
secretary of the association. He intro,
duceu and identified the books and
records Of the association.
After the testimony was all in the case
was adjourned till Thursday morning, tc
allow transcript Of the evidence to be
Z made when the case will be argued on
the points of law involved.
At the morning session on "Wednesday
Mrs. Clara E. Hulett was admitted te
citizenship.
The case of J. B. Holiday VS.. Fl. q
Anderson was dismissed on motion OF
the defendant. the plaintiff not having
complied with the former order of this
court, to pay the defendant the sum Of