The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-20
WHO WILL NOW SUCCEED HIM?
VIGOROUS PROTEST MADE AGAINST
NAMING HAMM, KUHL AND
POTTGIESER.
Several Creditors Represented by
Attorneys Who Want others
Than These Selected.

MAMMA bank was the question thor
oughly discussed before Judge Kelly at
special term, yesterday afternoon. The
matter of the resignation of Receiver
/ Auerbach came on for hearing in the
! forenoon before Judge Kelly, Attorney
! Briggs appearing for the receiver and
| ceiver's fees were placed at So 500, and
attorneys fees at $1,000, covering five
months Of the receivership.
! The hearing in the matter of the
appointing of a successor to Mr.. Auer-
bach was continued to p. m. The
! court room was filed with attorneys
at that hour. John D, O'Brien repre-
senting SIP out of l 900 creditors, whose
deposits amount to $2100C0 presented
petition signed by the 512 creditors
asking for the appointment as receiv-
ers of William Hamm, Bernard Kuhl
! and j. NJ. Pottgieser
Fred G.. Ingersoll, representing a
number of objecting creditors, there
upon presented a petition signed by
some thirty-fiVe creditors and repre-
! senting $21,0OO protesting against the
! appointment as receivers of any officer,
| stakeholder or debtor of the bank, or
! relative OF any such officer stockhold-
! er or debtor. Mr. Ingersoll said that his
! clients did not consider Messrs Hamm,
! kuhl and Pottgieser proper persons to
! be appointed as receivers, inasmuch as
/ they We're more or less affiliated with
| the interests Of the bank, and were un-
| til quite recently stockholders thereof.
Mr.. Ingersoll was not prepared, how
ever, to suggest the names Of any per-
| sons for the position.
Stan Donnelly here arose and stated
| that Mr.. POttgieser had not been a
! stakeholder in the Allemannia bank
! since 1898.
! Humphrey Barton, on behalf of other
objecting creditors cOntended that
| justice required the appointment of
some entirely disinterested person as
| receiver. There was no reason for ap-
POINTING more than one receiver, who
would prove just as efficient and less
expensive. Mr.. Barton was opposed
| to the appointment Of a banker as re-
| ceiVer inaSE1uch as the receiver, who
ever he might be, was not employed to
do banking business; experience had
| shown that bankers were not the most
! successful business men. Mr. Barton
! urged the appointment of fearless
man in no wise connected with any
! Of the banks. In conclusion, he hoped
| that it would not be deemed presumpt-
| uouS if he mentioned or suggested the
| name Of Arthur G. Otis, an honOred
member Of the bar, and not stock
| holder. officer or debtor of the bank.
E. S. Durment, representing other
/ Objecting creditors, read to the court
! the affidavit of Catherine Jungmann,
who has deposit of $500 in the Allie
MAMMA bank, protesting against the
/ appointment Of Messrs. Hamm, Kuhl
and Pottgieser as receivers. The af-
! fidavit alleged that the stockholders
! Of the bank are using their influence
and every means in their power to
avoid enforcement Of their liability,
! and are trying to secure the appoint
ment of receivers who will not enforce
such liability. The affiant further al
leges that Albert Scheffer is in debt
| to the bank in the sum Of $166000, and
that he and J. M. Pottgieser have
! opened an office in the Ryan hotel from
| which they have sent out circulars
urging the appointment of Messrs.
Hamm, Kuhl and Pottgieser as re-
ceivers. The affiant alleged that
Messrs Hamm Kuhl and Pottgieser are
| directors of the bank and were, until
recently, stockholders thereof, but that
they unloaded their stock shortly be-
fore the bank suspended. In conclu-
sion the affiant asked that disinterested
parties be appointed as receivers. Mr.
| Durment, as representative of other
stockholders, also asked that the court
appint disinterested parties.
Stiles Burr and S. G. OlmStead made
similar reuests in behalf of their
clients.
In behalf of the creditors urging the
! appointment Of Messrs. Hamm, Kuhl
and Pettgieser as receivers as well as
on behalf of Albert Scheffer, G.. M.
Nelson in reply to the objecting credi-
tors, contended that there was no force
in the argument that they had been
| connected with the bank. AS for the
affidavit read by Mr. Durment it was
based simply on information and be-
lief. There could be no justifiable OBJ
lection to the three men named. Mr..
Nelson cited the instance of the Bank
Of Minnesota where one of the re-
ceivers is a stakeholder and the other
a debtor Of the bank. The question
was who was the best qualified to
convert the assets into cash. A suit
to enforce the liability Of the stock
holders must be begun when directed
by the court. There was no sense in
the argument that these three men, if
appointed receivers, would refuse or
delay to bring such suit. These three
gentlemen offered their time, energies
and abilities for nothing. They were
entirely competent because perfectly
familiar with the affairs of the institu-
ton. No one had or could impugn
their motives. It was to their interest
| 10 realize dll possible from the assets,
and it was therefore only right, reason
able and proper that they should be
appointed.
M. D. Mum, representing other OBJ
jecting creditors, said that the feeling
certainly existed that these three gen.
tlemen were not sufficiently disinter-
ested; whether that feeling was well
founded or not made no difference,
inasmuch as 1t existed. 1t appeared to
him that the court should appoint some
one who could satisfy all parties, and
he trusted that the person appointed
would go to work in a practical man.
ner to collect the assets without ruin
ing anybody. In conclusion, Mr.. Mum
said that he trusted the court would
not make the appointment at the i'm
mediate conclusion Of the hearing.
Judge Kelly replied that he would
not, and announced that he would take
the matter under advisement. This
closed the hearing.
The final account submitted by Re-
, ceiver Auerbach Is as follows: Receipts
SCI, 799.07, and disbursements. 4 az
150.75; balance on hand, So 64S.3 49, OF
the receipts. S1 to, 531 29 is In cash and
cash items; $5,81S.47 is collections; bills
receivable, $22, AS; overdrafts, collater-
ais, $389.17. The total amount paid by
; voucher is $36,914.76, Of which $4,000 70
is for expense account and $9,735.5s for
deposits returned. The preferred claim
, by the state for $4,000 was duly paid,
also life insurance premiums to the
| amount of 81 227 OF