Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-10-02
PARK CITY BANK
ASSIGNMENT.
Supreme Court Finds twas Void
as to Thomas Cupit.
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LIEN
Court Holds that Neither the Assiguo.
Nor the Receiver Acquired TIue.
10 Rank nuiiding.

Tho supreme court handed down m
opinion today lH ihs case ~ Thomas
'uplt appellant 80 che Park city
bank and David 6. Mclaughlin. tudoiv-
90. reversing che judgment uf the trial
court with directions Co.. cater O. decree
releasing certain property from the re-
coiveuhip. and ordering that the same
TO De sold TO satisfy Cuplra Judgment
lien.
This was % creditors aut brought ~
Thomas rurIt against tho purk Clty
bank 90 have sot aside the assignment,
Ho fnr aa thg plaintiff in this case was
concerned, ana that certain Judgment
held by cupu boz DECLARED hrrt lien
against the bank building and tho
ground upon which the building stood.
In June. 1893. Che Park city bank as
signed for tho banrnt ~ its creditors.
ono month later CupH commenced an
action against the bank Go recover tt.-
WILL Dc auoggi that 5000
was deposited seven days be-
Fore the assignment. ut q time
when q was known o. a. d. Richlriaon
and those in immediate control % the
concern that the corporation was insoi.
yuut, cupit sued OUT "a writ " attach
ment. which was duly levied upon the
bank building and grounds lie proee-
cutel DIE suit through various courts 10
nnN judgment and after be- had advcr-
tlrod thu property for sale under the
execution. u. G.. Mclaughlin. tho re-.
cglycl OF tho bank brought suit against
CurIt and tho ahorln OF summit county
and succeeded in procuring a restrain
lug order against the sale of the proper
| ty peulius the determination of the
suit. On February. 1885, Cuplt CON.
muuced "a similar action In the Third
district court for Salt Lake county. II
was transferred 20 summit county foi
| tfiul and subsequently dismissed Got
want oi juuHdicton. Then cupii
brought the action decided today, ak.
Ing thnt the property lc,iol upon be dis
charged from the rrcrivcrship. and that
It be- dccrved subject 10 the lien Of hh
judgment entered IN a former suit Al
the lssuca presented were found Ia ia
I yor of thu bank and Cupn's petition wa
dismissed Plninun then appealed
4 NA| NNNNNiN. NNH'Al NNANNNN NN'AN ANhA'N
Tor reversal were as follows. Thai
the assignment Of the Park city llank
was void because Il was made without
authority, and never ratified hy author
ity; that A. n ilChurds0u had no au'
thurlty TO make the assignment because
such act ala not hy common usage per-
tain 90 his position MS cashier, ana be-
cause az the time hls ONCE was vacant
by reason uf bis hcinE Indebted 60 the
/ D. La.
findings of the court below were UNI
supported by the evidence 10 tho case.
Tho evidence. uH disclosed by the rec.
urlH, shows that lu 1890 Jerry 81 Rich.
nrds0n obtained from the Crescent Min
Ink company lease 20 certain MINING
property. on tho l0th ~ November
| 1881 b. assigned an Interest ln the lease
] TO A 10. richardson. cashier and bans
] director. and they continued to act ~.
Cythyf under the lease until the hank
collapsed. ON this point J, 81, Richard
BON testified that after the assignment
! OF portion Uf tho lease tuA, u, Rich
urds0u. myself and Richardson con-
unurd 90 uyt under the lease and as.
flrumput until che bank closed ~
Iuurs. ! ava the active managing work
] A. d. NighAria1n was in the bank We
ana the money and financial business
az the Park City bank. II was done
] by drawing checks On thu Park CltJ
bank signed D. NJ. Richardson.
"How was H." be- was asked. you
] came TO draw checks IN your own name
Instead of itlUhnrd8on 4 Richardson. %
Jerry q A. u Rlchardson2'
II don't know the reason why he
replied. "ouiy had been accustomed 10
draw checks us ]. II, Richardson prcyi.
Gus 90 the partnership and there wa
nothing said about altering II, hJ
checks were hon0rcd az the bank"
Wilson /. Snyder testified that a. II
Ia. "a lad =
cont lease, stated 20 him that he owned
unu-thlrd M 10 ana was going 20 make
some money out uf II, Othcr testimony
was introduced tending 60 show the 70.
latlonuhp that existed between a. u
and Jerry 81. Richardson, When the
bank failed thrrv was an overdruft 10
the name NJ J. N, Hlchardaon Tor f3s.'
1871 which was on the loaHv account
and f0r witch A. 10. richardson wa
personally liable, except G0.llb uf tht
amount which was Incurred by J, NJ
Richardson before A. ID, Richardson
became Interested in the lease. The
evidence further showed that on Jun'
s. lsgl-fuur days before the assignment
was made. 81. Richardson. ut the ro.
quest NJ a. u. Richardson. gave "a nou
in favor of the bank for &lA,l0sI
signed -. NJ Richardson, Crescent
Lcasor," a. II, Richardson rvmarking az
tho Times 1T don't make any difference
j favored you. it7 onl3 matter OF per.
sonuI favor. IL don't amount 10 any.
thing The bank commissioner viii b,
along IN "a few days and / want e
struiFhtrn up my accounts"
The court finds the evidence conclu.
aiyu showing thut a. ~ Richardson NJ
the time the assignment was made, and
TOR months prior thereto was indebted
90 tho bank in ~ sum IN excess Of &c.
900. Because 90 this the court unji
hr hH1 nu authority to not FOR tho cor,
powtlou fur tho reason that hi nHlci
had become vacant through tho opera
lions Of law, The court finds that the NO
crptuuco Boy a. 70 Richardson ~ Cuplti
muugy-Hnvru days before tho bank aH
rIgnUl-WuH fraudulent, and holds tha
neither the assignee nor hls successor
tho receiver acquired amy title 90 thi
property ln controversy, and that 4
~ therefore subject 90 Cupits ludg
mont llDn
Az the other creditors or the defunc
bank did not Join with Cupit, he vii
be the only one affected by todnys dc
ClalOu.
The opinion n by District Judge Me
CARY. cOncurred IN by Justice Bnsldn
Justice Miner concurs In the iudgmen
only,