The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-07-03
SOLONS WERE SLACK
SUPREME COURT CALLS STATE
LAWMAKERS TO TIME
building and Loan Association Law
or 1897 Declared Invalid, but the
Security Savings and Loan Assoc
cfatfOn, Which Took Advantage
OF 1t, Is Acquitted of Any Wrong
by Circumstances of It's Business

The supreme court, in an opinion
written by Chief Justice Start yester-
| day In the case Of John A. Sjoberg
ct al. VS.. the Security Savings and
Loan association, of Minneapolis, yes
terday sustained the law of 1894.
SJoberg and the other parties in the
action were stockholders in the Sc
cur1ty Savings and Loan association
and brought action for the appoint
ment of receiver. The savings and
loan association had subsequently, un-
der the provisions of the law passed
In 1897 permitting companies or asso-
Citations of that nature to go into VOL
untary liquidation to wind up their
affairs, taken such steps, and the
plaintiffs attacked the constitutional
ity of the law on the ground that it
contained no enacting clause.
The court holds that the objections
of the plaintiff are valid, and for that
reason the law Of 1897 is without eff
feet.
Judge Starts opinion, which Is quite
lengthy, says: UNLESS a constitutional
provision shows upon it's face that it
was intended to be directory, it must
be accepted as the imperative man
date of the sovereign people, and not
as good advice, where the legislature
they please. The safety of the state
and the protection of the liberty and
rights of its people demand that this
will be strictly adhered to.
While the court holds the law Of 1897
regulating the functions of building
and loan associations invalid, 1t grants
the Security Savings and Loan associ-
alton new trial and reverses the or
der Of the Hennepine county district
n dc hot hn =
ton had no outstanding liabilities, and
1T owed no persons except it's stock
holders, and, therefore, had, a. perfect
right to-, If az ma erity Of the stock
holders so decreed, go into voluntary
liquidation. tbs ther company did
some time previous to the time the
action was brought, as above stated,
and the Sjoberg party attacked it's
action also on the grounds that it was
not for the best interests Of the stock
holders, and that the affairs Of the
company are being miserably man
aged. The supreme court, in reversing
the lower courts findings, says there
Is nothing In the evidence to prove this
and grants new trial to allow the
estranged stockholders to settle the
case or fight 1t out strictly on it's legal
points.
The syllabus is as follows:
John A. Sjoberg ct al, respondents. VS.. Sc
curity Savings and Loan Association, ap-
pellant
1. Article w., section 10, Of the constitu-
ton OF the state, which provides that the
style OF all laws Of this state shall be: "'Be
It enacted by the legislature of the state of
Minnesota" is mandatory and a statute with
out any enacting clause Is void.
2. 1t Is not competent, for the purpose of
sustaining the validity of statute which had
no enacting clause when. 1t was sent to and
was approved by the governor to show that it
contained an enacting clause when it passed
the legislature.
8. Where building and loan association
bility to it's stockholders on account of their
stock, and there is a deficiency in its assets
so that it cannot mature it's stock or pay
back to it's stockholders the actual money
paid on their stock it is not insolvent in
the sense in which the word is used in
chapter rs. g. S. 1894, providing for the ap-
pointment of a receiver for corporations when
they are insolvent.
4. court of equity has Jurisdiction to
association, and for that purpose to appoint
receiver on the application of a minority
of its stockholders, whenever the purposes for
which it was organized have failed and 1t
is shown that such action is reasonably nee
essary for the protection Of the interests of
such stockholders.
5. Where the trial court makes findings of
fact the basis of its order (although it is
unnecessary so to do) and omits to find all
facts legally necessary to sustain the order,
1t will be reversed unless the record con-
clusively shows that the order Is right.
6. Held that the findings of fact Of the
trial court are not sufficient to Justify It's or
der appointing a receiver herein. Order re-
versed and a new trial granted.