Blackfoot news. (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1891-1902, 1899-11-11

OF what he had said or done or omitted |
to say or do In other words, there must |
he some injury TO the party pleading
the estoppel. He must have been in
dured to take some position which he
would not otherwise have takeI. In
this case the county had SO much money
In the bank, according to the decision
OF our supreme court, 1t WAS trust fund
and all Of IL al all times belonged TO the
counties. Tie creditors never had any
interest in it, nor could they acquire
any interest it, They therefore, never
had, at any time, the right 10 share any
portion OF 1t. What difference could it
make, therefore. had the counties ac-
cepted dividends which was only u part
OF what really belonged TO them. The
creditors had los, nothing because they
were entitled to no part OF the entire
sum. They haze in no wise changed
their position. by reason OF the divi-
dends having been paid. for the coun-
ties have only gotten part OF what be-
longcd to them.
We think the principle OF law just
referred to we'll settled by authority.
In the case below, IA party lied his claim
against the assignee in the regular way
as a general creditor. He afterwards
however elected to pursue his fund as
J trust fund and hold the bank as trustee.
: Ii was claimed he was estopped from so
doing by reason OF having filed a gen.
.ral claim. He even went SO far as to
receive the dividends. but the court
: said he was not estopped from claiming
that the bank WAS IA trustee. Among
other things, the court said: "He re-
ceived The dividends which he retains.
bu, he has received only a portion that
was due him. The rights of no one have
been prejudiced by this. No one has
changed his position, or lost any advan-
tage which the law gave him, in con-
sequence of what the plaintiff did in the
matter; and there are no facts upon
J which waiver or equitable estoppel
can be fully predicated."
c M'Leod VS.. Evans, % N. w. lie.
In the case below, the supreme court
. of Michigan held distinctly to the prin.
;. ciple in question. The syllabi Of the
o case reads as follows "The receipt by
a person OF dividend from the assignee
OF an insolvent bank does not estop him
'e demanding payment in full OF his claim
q against the bank, on the ground that .
y trust was imposed on the assets in his
'e favor as against the general creditors
10 Wallace VS.. Stone, 65 N. w. lib.
n The following cases are also in poin
L upon this principle OF law:
Bent vs. Barnes, 81 N. w. 42s.
re- State VS.. Gray ham, 10 l.. II. a. 600
s. Myers VS.. Board, b Pac. 65s.
III Mathew VS.. Fidelity Co. 81 Fed. 6S1
" First Nat. Bank VS.. Kelsey Coats
80 Fed. $40.
y The conclusion ut which l hav
arrived therefore is that these moneys
when deposited, became trust fund
that the bank became the trustee fo
the counties: that the receiver stand I
the same position AS the bank did; tina
the creditors never obtained any RICH
In these funds as they at no time coul
!, be considered as part OF the genera
assets OF tho bank; and that the conr
-, ties are not estoppcd from claimin
:, this as a trust fund by reason of an
facts appearing In the case.
49, 1t is the opinion OF the court there
:. fore that the counties should recovs
=. tor the respective amounts as shown
:. be due them, according to the none
> upon deposit. less the dividends While
n have been paid and that an order al
decree directing said receiver TO pa
,p- these amounts will he given. ] thin
,u- however. that in view Of the fact tn
ed the creditors have had no interest
he this matter, that the county must ps
a the costs OF these petitions, except SUI
ny costs ms were made by the receiver hin
MS self. In other words, that each par
rk nay his own costs. Findings Of Tact n
las conclusions OF law and decree may
10. drawn In accordance with this opipiu
,on !. G. RICH, Judge,