The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-09-19
A TRUST COMPANY LAW
ATTORNEYS FIELD DAY BEFORE
JUDGE ALLEN YESTERDAY.
Advantages of These Institutions in
the Care of Estates Dwell Upon
at Length-The Citations.

Judge Allen, of the Circuit Court, had
field day. yesterday, with attorneys
representing all the trust companies of
Indianapolis before him, trying to convince
him that trust companies, under the law
creating them, were not required to give
an additional bond when they wished to
sell piece of real estate belonging to
ward. Probate Judge Walker heretofore
has not required companies to give bond
in these cases, it being understood that
the law conferred this distinction on trust
companies. The Security Trust Company
is about to sell a property belonging to one
of it's wards, but the attorney for the pros
pective purchaser thought an old statute
requiring guardians 10 give bond with
freehold security was not superseded by
the trust company law.
In order to have the Circuit Court pass on
the point, Judge Walker ordered an addi-
tional bond given. The Security Trust
Company was willing to abide by the pro-
bate commissioners decision, but all
the trust companies were interested in the
point raised, Judge Allen wanted to hear
all the arguments he could get on the sub
ject.
Mr.. Pierre Gray, attorney for the Secur-
ity Trust Company in the estate before
the court, made the opening statement.
Mr.. Charles w. Smith represented the
Union Trust Company, Mr.. Charles Thomp-
son the Marion, Alexander G. Ayres the
Indiana, and Ovid 3. Jameson the Central.
These gentlemen contended that il was the
distinct purpose of the Legislature in Great
Ing trust companies 10 enable them to per-
form these trusts without these additional
bond qualifications. The law, they insisted,
put a large number of safeguards around
frrG ar,fnc
vided for complete supervision by the
auditor of state, imposed double liability on
stockholders in order that estates might
be more safely handled than when in the
hands of individuals They contended that
1t would be absurd that the law would per-
nit trust company to qualify, without
bond and handle million dollars worth of
personal property, and yet when it wished
to convert a NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. piece of
real estate into an investment producing a
better income, to require the company to
give a bond with freehold security in twice
the amount involved. Senator Thompson
showed the practice for eight years in In
dianapolis in this matter, and intimated
that it would be dangerous procedure for
the court TO so construe the law as to ques-
tion the titles which had been obtained by
purchasers under guardian sales where
trust companies had not been required to
give this additional bond. Reference was
frequently made to a decision by the Min
nesota Supreme Court to sustain the trust
companies position, this high court also
having called attention to the fact that 1t
was the demand for safe administration OF
estates which had led to the adoption of
trust-company laws in various State At
torney Ashby took the opposing side. Mr.
Ashby was interested in the matter only
so far as 1t pertained TO the title Of the
property which his client proposed to buy
Judge Allen, after hearing the argument
for several hours, took the matter under
advisement, stating that he believed the
question one of too much Importance to
give an immediate decision. The Security
| Trust Company had a bond prepared. and
| will not appeal, should Judge Aliens de-
| csion require bond. The company does
not wish to delay the sale of its wards
| property, and so all the trust companies
| probably will unite in another case a test
one, to be taken before the Supreme Court