The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-01-06
NOT YET SETTLED.
The Powers of the Bank
Commissioners.
ATTORNEYS AT VARIANCE.
Are commissioners Ex-OfficiO
Receivers ?
A SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Dispute as to Whether or Not
Receiver Can Be Appointed
Without Their Consent.
ATTORNEYS AT VARIANCE.
A SUPREME COURT DECISION.

Inc matter OF the suit Drought Oy tuo
Peoples Home Savings Bank against the
Pacific Bank to foreclose mortgage and
appoint O receiver came up before Judge
Sanderson yesterday.
Previous 10 any motion being submitted
Attorney P. F. Dunno filed an answer to.
the suit on behalf of the Pacific Bank.
The answer substantially embodied the
statements made in the afidaVits of S. +.
Long. vice-president of the bank. and
Bank Commissioner a. Gerberding. They
were to the effect that the mortgage of the
Pacific Banks property which the Peoples
Bank sought to fOreclOse was ultra vices
and void. as having been executed after
June %, 1893 on which date the Pacific
Bank closed its doors. 1t stated that the
Pacific Bank premises we're worth 1000.
and the appointment OF a receiver was an
expense wholly unnecessary.
Frank NJ. Stone represen ted the Peoples
Bank, while p. f. Dunno represented the
Pacific Bank directors. The first proceed
ing taken in the matter was by Attorney
w. +. Baggett, who moved to intervene on
behalf of the Bank Commissioners. He
insisted that the commissioners were re-
cevers under the recent decision of the
Supreme Court, and that in the interest of
all persons 1t was necessary that they
should be made parties to the suit. The
commissioners would not recognize the
appointment of a receiver, and they would
not deliver up the property OF the bank.
On the other hand Attorney Dunno
maintained that Judge Hebbard either
misc0n strued the Supreme Courts decision
or exceeded his authority in making the
decree as be did appointing the Bank
Commissioners receivers. Judge HebbaTd
had given the Commissioners no super
vi hnf hod hco
lutte authority to handle the assets of the
bank. That was contrary to the provisions
of the bank act, which required that in
such cases the bank directors should man.
age the affairs of the bank and report to
the Bank Commissioners. The decree as
made by Judge Hebbard was not worth
the paper upon which it was written.
"May ii please the court, interposed
Baggett, they could have appealed if they
had so chosen. But they've failed to APP
peal and so the order must now stand"
Attorney Stone produced a copy of the
banking act, from which he endeavored to
show that the Bank Commissioners could
not possibly act as receivers. THE law
distinctly states" said he, that The re-
ceiver must report to the Bank Commits
sioners, and further that if he fail to act
as directed by the Bank Commissioners
they may impose fine of $500. How can
the Bank Commissioners report to them
selves and in case of dereliction Of duty
fine themselves $500? Then, again. 40
power can grant continuance of one year
In such matters except the Bank Commits
sioners; now. how can they grant such
continuance to themselves?
Baggett contended that the Bank Com
missiOners were ex-cfficio receivers. aud
as such had a perfect right to intervene.
1t was so provided by the Supreme Courts
decision.
Dunno said that bis friend Baggett
H. l. L.
so interpreted the decision of the Supreme
Court. The fact was the Bank Commits.
siOners were cO-plainliffs with the Peo-
pies Bank by courtesy only. but had no
possible right TO intervene.
Judge Sanderson ordered the matter
submitted, as he could not decide it before
he had carefully studied the decision of
the Supreme Court The court was
rather inclined to the belief that the COM
missiouers had no right to intervene, but
a decision would be rendered in day or
two.
Frank NJ. Stone then moved for the ap-
pointment of a receiver during the pend
better for all parties so to do.
Dunno said he must take the other side
of the house on this motion. The banks
answer had been filed. in which the mort
gage was declared invalid. To appoint a
receiver when the subject of cause was
a divorce case when the marriage was
denied.
Judge Sanderson said he would take
that matter also into consideration But
he certainly thought that the appoint
ment of a receiver was a useless expense.
Why not try the case right away? The
court would give the parties a speedy
hearing.
All the attorneys expressed themselves
ready to try the case there and thea. and
so the matter was allowed to stand 1t is
understood that the case will be brought
to trial on Wednesday or Thursday next.
The suit brought by E. W. Chapman to
recover certain notes from the Pacitc
Bank came np before Judge Hebbard yes
terday afternoon. This is a case in which
Chapman held mortgage on some real
estate in Fresno County belonging to one
john Brown as security for loan of
$4,000. He owed some money subse-
QueDtly TO the Pacific Bank and was COM
PEELED to assign this mortgage as security.
subsequently he sold the mortgage to the
bank outright, but he never received back
his notes. which he claims should have
been Cancelled.
MT. Chapman was examined at some
length, after which the case as continued
------
The Harbor Light and Powe Company bas
Incorporated, win capital of S100, OOO