The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-09
FOUR broken BANKS
SEVERAL CASES DECIDED IN THE
SUPREME COURT INVOLVING
THEIR FINANCES.
LAW OF 1895 is HELD VALID.
NO QUESTION NOW AS TO THE
POWER OF RECEIVERS
THEREUNDER.
ROSE MUST STAY IN PRISON.
The Directory Contract He Had Was
Sufficient to Bring 1t Within
the Forgery Statute.
LAW OF 1895 is HELD VALID.


banks were filed in the supreme court
yesterday.
In the first decision the provisions
Of the law in this state are recited
at length to show that where receivers
have been regularly appointed they
have the exclusive right to bring ac-
tons for the enforcement of the indi-
vidual liability of stockholders, and
that creditors cannot be permitted to
supercede the receivers in an action
of this kind. The decision Of the dis
trict court is sustained.
In the second case Johanna Ander-
son attempts to appeal from the de-
cision of the district court empower
ing the receivers to institute proceed
ings for the enforcement of the liza
bility of stockholders. The receivers are
again sustained, and the appeal is dis
missed
In the first decision, that entitled
Johanna Anderson, appellant, VS.
Frank A. Seymour ct al, receivers of
the Bank Of Minnesota, the syllabus
says:
First-L. 1895, chapter AS an act entitled
9 An act to revise the laws relating to banks
of discount and deposit" is not unconstitu-
uonal upon the ground that it does not meet
the requirements of article TX. section 49,
or our state constitution, or upon the ground
that 1t lmpa!rs the obligation of the contract
between banks heretofore existing and the
state, or upon the ground, if it be held ap-
plfcable to such banks, that it impairs the
contract obligations between it's stockholders
and those creditors whose claims arose prior
to the day such law took effect or upon
the ground that due process of law was not
In
banking corporations, or upon the ground
that the title of the act did not conform to
article w., section q, or upon the ground
that the act itself is in violation or article
w, section 80 of the constitution.
Secondly section g. of chapter 145, SUI
pra, the provisions thereof are made appli-
cable to banks existing and doing business
under the laws of this state at the time said
statute went into effect
Third. 1897, chapter 341 does not apply
to insolvent banking corporations for which
receivers have been appointed under chapter
145, supra, section 20.
neutrality-suspicious. appointing under the pro-
visions of section 90 supra, can enforce in
proper cases the double liability imposed
upon stockholders by General Statutes 1894
section 2501
Fifth-Where receivers of insolvent bank
ing corporations have been appointed in ac
cordance with the provisions of section 20,
supra, they have the primarily exclusive
right to institute proceedings to enforce the
stockholders liability. Creditors cannot be
permitted to supersede receivers in the eX-
ercise of this right without first showing
in which the insolvency proceedings are pend
ing. To this extent the remedies Of re-
ceivers under said section 20, and those of
creditors under G. S. supra, chapter 76,
are concurrent. The proceeding by either
is properly by supplemental complaint in
the original action.
This opinion is important because 1t
was claimed by the creditors that the
Low Of ,-f;
therefore that the liability was double
the amount of stock held and owned
by each stockholder.
In the other case, the creditors ap-
pealed from the order of Judge Otis
authorizing the receivers to proceed to
collect the liability. The court dis
misses this appeal on the ground that
the order was not appealable.
Eroch Johnson appeared for the cred
and G. ]. Berryhill appeared for the
stockholders, and Young and Lightner
appeared for the receivers Of the Bank
of Minnesota. The syllabus in the sec
ond case is:
In re receivership of the Bank of Minnesota,
F. A. Seymour and w. H. Lightner, recev-
ers, respondents, vs. Johanna Anderson, ap
pellant.
A creditor who had commenced an indie
pendent action to enforce the liability of
poration appeared and opposed an applica-
ton made to the court by receivers of the
corporation, appointed in accordance with
the provisions of Laws 1895, chapter AS, sec
ton 20, for leave to institute proceedings to
enforce such liability.
Held, that an order of the court granting
the application and empowering the receive
ers to proceed is not appea!able. Appeal dis
missed. Collins J.
In the case of the State of Minnesota.
plaintiff, vs.. Bank of New England, de-
PENDANT, j. A; Hanson, intervenor. respon
is ruled by Justice Buck that:
Under General Statutes 1894, section 25O1,
the stakeholder of a bank or banking corpor-
alton is individually liable in an amount
equal to double the amount of stock stand
ing on the books of the corporation in his
name and held by him as collateral security
for a debt for all the debts OF such bank
during the time he so holds said stock, and
this liability continues for one year after
any transfer or sale of such stock by the
stockholder if the bank becomes insolvent
ad suspends payment within one year after
such sale or transfer. Judgment is affirmed.
The syllabi in the other bank cases are:
Luth Jaeger, receiver of Scandal Bank of
Minneapolis, respondent, vs.. Reinert Sunde
ct al, Defendants; Renert Sunde ct al,
appellants.
l. Under the code as under the old chanc-
cry practice, a demurrer for defect of parties
defendant is bad If 1t does not in proper
manner point out the persons who ought to
be made defendants.
A. LELAND, as receiver of Washington Bank,
respondent, VS.. A. c. Hangar ct al, appel
lants.
1. The provisions of General Statutes 1894,
chapter rs, are applicable where receiver
of an insolvent banking corporation appoint
ed such receiver by virtue of Laws of 1895,
chapter las. section 20, institutes proceedings
to enforce the individual liability of stock
holders as empowered to do by said section.
The proceeding. when SO instituted, is a step
in the main action precisely as 1t has here
tofore been when taken by a creditor and
is governed by the same rules of practice
and procedure. 1t is not necessary to allege
in the petition or complaint or to prove upon
the trial that an order of the court has first
been obtained authorizing the institution OF
the proceeding.
g. All actions brought or proceedings in
stituted by receiver of an nsolvent bank
ing corporation should be brought insti-
tuted by the receiver of such and in his own
name.
g. Held, that there no defect of parties
plaintiff in this proceeding and that the COM