The San Francisco call., 1895-12-14

rectors of the Peoples Home Savings 1a BanS
were nnblished no reply from me to the stats
ment of the attorneys OF the CaliIornia @ oo,o
Deposit and Trust Company would pe neoe'-
Ills easy TO saw that proposition OF law ls
false and that the facts are not so ana SO, GIs i
why die, they not test the legal proposltIo- -
| volved in the Winterburn case Wnere sio1s go.
| deal OF money was spent by the trust com,
| pany to print a voluminous complaint anu
serve it on several hundred persons? Ihat was ss
an action in which the trust company sougnt
| to subject the unpaid capital to the payment
OF its alleged claim TO the exclusion OF all otneI
depositors The complaint was sworn " t by
an officer of the combination and signed Dy
Among its allegations was one that the
claims "have been assigned to plalntiH 10!
value" and the assignments were set out anu
purported to be outright assignments LOT
value. Moreover, in their annual statement
to the Bank Commission for 1899 tnese
passbooks are listed as assets at their par Faiue
and go TO make up, among Other quesllohautIo
items, the amount OF assets required by law "
authorize ii to do business even as trust COM
pany. o-oo
1t is true was paid ABOUT one year ago SoOo
for services as counsel TO the directors OF tne
Peoples Home Savings Bank, for wh1cn rens
dered good service, all OF which the ooohs oi
the corporation and vouchers show. Ihe1
came The Winterburn case, in which showed
on behalf OF my client that the trust company
had no standing in any court on the pass
books, whether it claimed title as q trust COM
panv or bank, or as both, the latter claim De-
ing a legal absurdity under our law
1t has not brought single action since
that one based upon the passbooks, ana oon's
dare bring one, though its attorneys promlseo
at public meetings of depositors to not only
sue for unpaid capital, but to compel an ac-
counting from various persons and TO raise the
devil generally
It's true that before the question OF little to the
passbooks held by them was examined asReu
themtO intervene in the Goldman case, Dut not
since. With respect to my motives Tor brlng-
ing that suit, which committee OF aeposiuois SLOTS
a trI1S or nnrnl nyfC ATTORNEYS
toned, and with respect to the queSllon
whether 1t was properly brought, only are mare
to say that ii their claims on these points were
correct why did they not bring new SUIT!
The answer is that they diu not dare 10 pc
cause 1T would at once put in issue thelr Ute
to these passbooks and their right to do busl-
ness as bank. 1t is significant that nothing
was said about my relation as counsel until
after put the trust companys attorneys OUT
of court in the Winterburn case.
Now as to the question of the legal status OF
the trust company it is true that 1T has a
license from the Bank Commissioners, but the
dictum of that commission falls far short OF
being the law of the State.
No attempt is made to answer my PROPOSE
ton that the directors have no right to loan
out the assets of the Peoples Home Savings
Bank, and that not even legitimate bank can
receive them except on special deposit. All
perso rs are chargeable with notice that these
are trust funds and that they cannot be used
except to pay diviGends-that they cannot be
invested after having been converted into
money in the process OF liquidation.
Unless these funds are restored this ques.
ton will be tested in the courts, as was that
of the power OF the trust company to acquire
the passbooks.
The date OF incorporation of the trust COM
pany is entirely immaterial; but, since my
statement is put in issue. l will say that 1t
filed articles April II, 1892, and came
under the act of 1891, placing trust companies
under the jurisdiction OF the Bank Commits
sioners. Every lawyer in the City, unless it
be the attorneys of the California Safe Deposit
and Trust Company, knows that the life of the
corporation dates from the filing OF its new
articles
Jaros Hygienic Underwear for ladies, for gen.