Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1907-02-03

not been meeting of said hoard of
directors or any committee thereof
for more than three years: while such
few meetings as were held by the
directors during the first and second
years of the banks existence were
largely perfunctory and devoted
chiefly to adjusting the affairs OF
the stockholders as between them
selves and ut none of them were the
affairs of the bank SO far as it's
banking business was concerned ex.
amlned or considered. And that
cashier, upon information and belief.
1t is charged that although bylaws
and resolution of the board of direc.
tors required execution of official
bond none was executed by the cashier
and that for two years next prior to
May 10Th. 1906, said cashier had fail
ed to pay any attention to the bank
and did not perform any of the du-
ties of cashier not even counting the
cash for nearly two years; that all
of which things were known or by
the exercise of even the most ordi-
nary care could and would have been
known to said directors and to each
of them.
THAT the collapse of said bank. the
sQuandering, dissipation and loss of
It's funds and the subsequent loss to
its depositors and creditors including
petitioner were the natural. direct,
proXimate. and inevitable result of
the same, and many similar acts of
gross negligence on the part of the
said directors of said bank; and petit.
toner charges that consequently the
said directors named in Section of
said petition are Jointly and sew.
orally liable for any and all of said
losses SO resulting TO, the creditors
of said bank including, the petitioner
from gross negligence oe3said officers
and directors during the period of
their respective terms of office aa
"Thc demurrers that have been fill
ed or which have been presented to
the judge who is acting In the place
and stead Of the judge of this court.
and which will he filed by the decree
to be entered by the court today so
far rs the grounds of the demurrers
which were argued either orally or
In writing embrace but one ground of
demurrer, which as assigned is that
the said petition contains n general
charge that the defendant, as n direc-
tor of said Savings Bank, negligently
permitted the corporate funds to be
loaned to insolvent persons and cor.
porations without pretence of Sc
curity or without adequate security;
and further permitted insolvent per-
sons and corporations, to overdraw
their accounts. The said petition
should have set forth in detail the
time, persons, corporations and cir
cumstances of such loans or over
drafts as we'll as the several periods
that defendants were directors, so
that the defendant might know the
charge or charges he has to answer
and be able to intelligently prepare
his defense. which it is impossible
for him to do under the general alleg-
ations Of said petition
"'rhe liability Of directors for losses
grows out Of their mismanagement of
the concerns of the bank and their
duties has been often the subject of
judicial inSstigation and decision. TT
is n question at this day we'll under.
stood by the profession. and it is not
controversial to any degree by the
learned counsel in this case.
"1f by reckless inattention to the
duties confided to them by their cor
poration. frauds and misconduct are
penetrated by officers. agents and
co.directors which ordinary care on
their part would have prevented them,
1t may be said with truth that is is
now elementary law to he found in
all the books that directors are per-
sonally liable for the losses result
Ing Moreover all authorities now
tend to the conclusion that directors
OF banks and other moneyed corpol-
ations hold the relation to stockh,ld
ers. depositors. and creditors of irus-
tees To oestuis que trust. and as such
are personally responsible for frauds
ana losses resulting from gross neS,i.
gcnce and inattention to the duties
Of their trusts.
And when consider that tho
statements in the petition In this
suit are based upon the negligence
of the directors who arc named in
Seton of the petition and that re-
lief is prayed for on account If their
ncgligcnc" and as is often alleged
their gross negligence which is allee-
cd a2Hinst not one or more Of them
hut which is alleged as against all of
them. either as to their omission to
do what they ought to have done in
the exercise of their high and ~espon.
sible trust or for their failure in tho
'-NV'Sioe w 'iidI "diiic liua' W CoiicCt
which had already been the result of
such negligent omission. feel CON
strained to overrule each and all oe
the demurrers filed already or to he
filed by the order at this time. The
case Of Alderman " Halsev BIN. !.
Equity Reports p.-357 is case very
much in point and is the case which
seems most apposite here.
"In conclusion taking the petition
in all it's general statements as to
negligence of the directors. its sew
eral statements of the particulars of,