The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1907-04-19
COURT|
.D0LlWN!ll \ 4 I :! | /
First Since
&. Vacat

~. -t5la' < si4 r. ,5,rs3-Ss>ss
CHARLESTON. April IA Seven
teen opinions we're handed down b,
the Supreme Court OF Appeals Wed
Resaay, the first opinions since their
return from their vacation. Judge
Poffenbarger, who remained In the
city during the vacation OF the court
leads the list with twelve opinions
written by him. The following is the
summary Of the opinions:
By Judge Poifenbarger-
Huntington Easy Payment Com
pany VS.. Parsons, from Cabell coun
ty; reversed and remsnded.
Peters VS.. Sase, from Fayette
county; affirmed.
Reeves VS.. Ross, from Mcdowell
county; reversed AMI remanded.
Fisher VS.. MylIus, from Upshur
county; reversed and remanded.
Washington National Building &
Loan Association VS.. HelronImus, from
Tucker county; reversed and remand,
ed.
George W. Lawson and wife VS..
Williamson Coal & Coke Company,
from Mingo county; affirmed.
Freeman vs.. Freeman, from afer
Ger county; reversed and remanded.
Gufr VS.. Young. from ROane county:
affirmed.
Sutherland Us. Randolph county
court, from Randolph; Injunction dis,
solved and bill dismissed.
DeBoard VS.. Camden Interstate
Railway Company, from Cabell coaH
ty: reversed and remanded.
Layerty vs.. HambrIck, from CabelI
county; reversed and remanded.
State vs.. Grove, from GFeeRbrieF
county; reversed and remanded.
By Judge McWhorter-
Lamp VS.. Homestead Building As
ISOLATION, from Wood county; affirm
ell.
PrOudfoot VS.. Soaie, from Barbour
county: reversed.
By Judge Miller
Elliott ct al. VS.. Farmers Bank Of
Phllippl ct al, from Barbour county;
affirmed.
Miller Supply Company vs.. Crane.
from Cabell county: reversed.
Jennings VS.. Dig Sand & Cumber'
land Railroad Company; from MingC
county: affirmed.
The syllabi In number Of the cases
follow:
Elliott ct al. VS.. Farmers Bank Of
Pblllppl et al, from Barbour County.
Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Miller.
l. In suit by creditors, who are
also directors and officers Of an In
solvent banking corporation, to mar
shal and distribute the assets and to
charge the stockholders with their
statutory liability to creditors for de-
liciency OF assets. where It appears
that the Insolvency Of the bank Is due
to the gross mismanagement and neg.
lect OF such directors and officers rem.
derlng them liable to creditors and
stockholders for losses Incurred there.
by, they may, in a proper ease, be post.
pOned as creditors until the debts OF
all other creditors have been fully
paid.
., The relationship Of officers anil
directors OF corporation and stock.
holders and creditors Is that Of trus'
tees and cestals que trustent. This Is
especially true with regard to bank.
ing corporations, where they owe an
earlier duty to depOsitOrs; and Il by
their gross acknowledgement and neg.
lcct loss is incurred, they will be rem.
dered liable therefor 10 creditors and
stockholders.
,, Directors and officers Of bank.
ing corporation will not he relieved
from such liability on account Of lgnor.
ance or want Of knowledge OF those
matters which II Is their duty TO know,
and II they negllgently entrust such
matters TO others, the loss incurred
thereby should fall on them. and not
upon their confdlng depOsltors and
stockholders.
1. In such suit neither the hank
nor lis creditors or stockholders are
estopped from oil.settIng against the
debts Of other claimants or their as.
signecs, whether by judgment or 9th.
erwlse lno superior equities interven.
ing), the Indebtedness OF such claim.
ants to the bank not Involved or adjld.
icated in n former suit between the
same parties or their privles.
Miller Supply Company VS.. Crane,
from Cabell county. Reversed. Op,