The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-10-21
ST. NICHOLAS BANK DIVIDESD.
This II the Inst Judge Barrett VIII
A nth orIze the Temporary Receiver TO Mac

| This II the Inst Judge Barrett VIII
| Authorize the Temporary Receiver to Maze.
The application of IiughJ. Grant, as temporary
receiver of the st. Nicholas Bank, for permits
sion to pay an additional dividend of 20 per
cent, was granted yesterday by Justice Barrett
OF the Supreme Court. The present dividend
will take about $4Os, 776 Of the S84O,8l3 which
Mr.. Grant has on hand subject, also to expenses
OF the receivership, most OF which have. how
ever, been paid. Some Of the assets OF the bank
have not been collected. The creditors, who
will on this dividend have received 80 per cent.
of their claims, will probably get from 3 TO 10
per cent. more. On the present application
Levi c. Lathrop, one Of the largest stockholders
OF the bank and its Vice President up to its
failure. submitted affidavit In favor OF the
temporary receiver paying % per cent. at this
time on the claims.
The Judge makes comment on those who, with
the hope of saving the bank and its charter, ex-
pectant that the liabilities might be liquidated,
had permitted the temporary receivership to
run on. The Attorney General or any OF those
persons directly interested in the assets OF the
bank could have moved to terminate the tenn
porary receivership and for the appointment
of permanent receiver to wind up its
affairs. 1t is not the business of the tenn
pOrary receiver to move for tho appointment
of IA permanent receiver, which appointment
is usually given tn the temporary receiver.
So that by doing the extra work Of settling up
the banks affairs the temporary receiver gets
no more in commissions than IL he had early
been made permanent receiver, besides all divi-
dends which he pays to creditors are at his own
risk. because he takes chances that he has as
certalned all the creditors. none of whom can be
barred out for not proving his claim, under
the statutory advertisement by permanent re-
ceiver.
The opinion OF Justice Barrett IL az follows:
As intimated upon the argument, have con-
Cluded TO permit the payment Of the present
dividend. But l have reached the conclusion
only because OF the unwilingness 20 delay pay
ment 10 the depositoTs may say. however,
will feel justified in permitting the temporary
receiver 10 make. Under the present and pre-
cent. of claims. and will have wefl nigh ex-
hausted the assets OF the bank. This practice
while forced upon the receiver, cannot, so FAR
as the parties TO the action are concerned, be
commended. The power conferred upon the
Court Ia sanction dividends by temporary re-
ceiyer was never intended as a complete substi-
tute for the statutory proceedings required in
the case OF permanent receiver. Here nothing
serve complaint charging insolvency. Yet
nearly wear has been suffered 10 elapse with
out proceeding TO Judgment.
In the mean time we have the anomaly of the
substantial winding upof tho affairs OF the bank
by the temporary receiver. The Court would
judgment where some good purpose, Ia be shown
as other facts are shown, is tO be conserved.
Here, however, no such purpose has ever been
shown; and IL II had been, the delay has still
been unreasonable. make these observations 50
that the parties may not be surprised at the de-
NAL OF any further application for a dividend
pendente lite. The only proper way 10 wind up
this institution Is tn enter Judgment, confirm
the temporary receiver permanent receiver
and then proceed under the statute to advertise
for claims, and thus cut Oft those who do not
then come forward. In other words, To comply
with the law, and not attempt To utilize the BEN
ehcial provisions OF the statute with regard to
temporary receivers for purposes foreign u tie
legislative intent"