The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1895-12-21
:. NO | ! ! Ri il !: i i.
Application For Such by the Hennepin
ro,,r+x G. r and:lI. A. =:

Appl,cation For Such by the Hennepin
County 6. B.. and L. A.
Judge Elliott has denied the motion for
receiver for the Hennepin County Cath
olic Building and Loan association, which
was argued before him some. weeks ago,
! and in doing SO he gives the following ad-
vice to the association in a memorandum
which gives his reason for not granting
the petition
81 am satisfied that the best interests OF
the stockholders in this corporation viii
not be advanced by the appointment T.. OF a
receiver. The difference between the as
sets and the liabilities as alleged in the
complaint; and when we take into eonsld-
Grafton the fact that on the defendant S
showing the assets fully equal in value
the liabilities, there is no showing which
would Justify the court in saying that the
defendant corporation is insolvent; ~
"There is nothing in the charge that there
has been an illegal or over-issue OF shares.
The evidence shows thatsthe institution has
been conducted economically rather than
extravagantly. It might be infererd from
the circun stances that it was. the inten-
ton Of these parties to abandon this organ
ization and transfer dts business Ito, the
new corporation which it is admitted was
formed. But from. the allegations Of the
answer, supported by the af1dayits OF par
ties OF equal creditabiAity. am unable to
find anything wrong or illegal in the trans
action. Hf.:ssH13S5 . - -
sit is possible that the managers have
overva1led some Of the real estate; and as
a result retired some: of the stock at too
high valuation, but L. can find nothing
to convince me that such acts we're Wilful
or done with any corrupt or fraudulent in
tent. At the most it is the result Of bad
Judgment on the part Of the managers.
1.-THE evidence also fails to show that
there has been any wiliful misconduct on
the part of the directors and managing Of
flcers. Some things have been done which
good busiess policy might condemn, but
these things were done by those who were
elected by. stockhQlder to: manage this
institution and it. they. have not managed
it satisfactorily, il. is for the stockholders
to elect other persons to take theiT places.
But this will not justify a court 81 edttity
in taking the control Of the institNnon
out of their hands SO long as tits not
proven that they are guilty of actual fraud.
1t is true that the institution has many
mortgages upon which the, interest and
payments are in default, but an investiga-
ton Of. the list of mortgages shows that,
had the parties who appear as plaintiffs in
this proceeding complied with their con-
tract according to the tefms:there0f and as
that contract has been construed and settled
by the supreme court OF the. state, the in
stitiiGoiii would now be III much: better
shape.
5 The real difficulty seems, to be that the
stockholders are not able 10. agree, upon
the construction Of their contract, hut that
is not q. matter to, be. settled upon the APP
plication of a receiver. A little united
effort on the part Of the stockholders would
do much more inward carry this insti-
tuition through fl. a difficulties than win the
expensive machine EYDf yeFship. =