Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-01-13
Remarkable LITIGATION.
Spilling the Soup While Clamoring
for the Bowl.
FIVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AS TO
THE PROPER WAY TO DISSOLVE
A BUILDING ASSOCIATION
BONDSMEN ASKED TO MAKE
GOOD A DEFICIENCY.

A remarkable instance of multiplication
of litigation and the double bowknots into
which the courts can tie the slender
| thread of justice, is attracting the atten-
ton of legal lights and interested parties
at Martins Ferry.
On October S0th. 1897, the directors of
the Standard Building and Loan Associa-
| ton, of that place, made an assignment to
Henry G. Pratt. Esq, who promptly set
himself to work to straighten up the af-
| fairs of the association and close il out.
1t is now more than likely that those who
| have impeded him in his work are sorry
they spoke, for the aggregate of the
costs which are piling up will be some
thing formidable. 1t is estimated that at
least $3.50 has already been consumed in
fees, costs and expenses. and if the litiga-
ton continues it will not pay 30 cents on
the dollar.
The collections of Assignee Pratt have
amounted to sS,464, and if he had been per-
! mitted to follow out the usual practice in
settling up estates, the assets would likely
have paid out from-75 to 80 per cent.
Hardly had the assignee gotten under
good Roadway when he was enjoined
from further proceedings by Attorney
Maburn. of Wheeling, acting for Fred
Jones and Others who are stockholders.
The point raised was whether the probate
or common pleas court has jurisdictions in
such settlements. This suit is now in the
Ohio Supreme Court.
Suit number two was filed by Attorney
Shreve. who asked that a receiver be APP
pointed, instead of an assignee. The
question of jurisdiction was also raised
and the suit is still pending.
Next was a general equity suit started
merrily on its way by E. o. Padelford, a
stockholder. He asked the common pleas
court to divide the amount of money al
ready in Mr. Pratt's hands and assess
| borrowers to equalize losses. This action
is likewise resting where it started, in
common pleas court.
Later w. B. Francis, representing one
half of the stockholders, filed a petition
praying that the association might be d s.
solved and a permanent receiver appoint
| ed. Upon this question the court held
| that receiver cannot be appointed while
| Assignee Pratt holds the deeds. The
| court, however did appoint Geo. Mckee,
of Bridgeport. a receiver, appendante lite,
| that is, simply a stake holder, and here
| the case rests more than fourteen months
after the association has been declared in
solvent.
Assignee Pratt, who audited the books,
discovered a discrepancy between the pass
books and the cash books of some 81, 200
The association was organized in 1888, and
| the losses seemed to have begun two
years later They were greatest in 1897
and 1894 in which years they reached the
| totals of $511 ard $40. respectively. 1t is
this deficit which is being discussed at
| present. Only a few days ago Receiver
| Mckee notified the bondsmen who were
| sponsors for the custodians of the funds
| that the amount must be made good
| and there may be litigation coming as a
| consequence. The bondsmen who are al
| legged to be responsible for the shortage
are all well known gentlemen of Martin
| Ferry, namely, F. r. Sedgwick, c. G.
Ralston, John Burkhart, Theo Kelar
Joseph Waters and the estate of the late
| Patrick McDonough.
| 1t is only fair to state that the stock
holders now acknowledge the ability and
| fairness with which Assignee Pratt has
| discharged his trust, and see when it is
| too late that a more conservative policy
would have been to the best interest OF
| all concerned.