The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1910-11-17
BANK RECEIVERS
PETITION DENIED

AT Carson City Tuesday Judge Ian
gan filed the following decision, which
denied the petition of Napes and Bend
er of the State bank directorate where
in they offered to pay the sum of $40,-
600 and be released from all liability:
Frank l.. Wildes, as receiver of the
State Bank & Trust company, has re-
ported to this court that if the ac-
tion now pending on trial in this court
entitled Frank l.. Wildes, as receiver,
etc, VS.. Thomas B. Ricksy ct ais, be
dismissed as to defenunts George
Mapes and Charles T. Bender, before
judgment without prejudice and with
out discharging or satisfying any
cause of action or right of action in the
complaint set forth as TO the said
George Mapes and Charles IT, Bender
or either of them, in whole or in part
and saving and reserving to the said
receiver as plaintiff in said action, all
and every cause of action against the
said defendants, George Mapes and
Charles 7. Bender, contained and set
forth in the complaint in said action,
and if the said receiver therefore exc
cute or covenant to said defendants,
0tOiS St AhdDto anu CUdTitS l.. DtHueT,
not to hereafter sue them or either of
them upon any cause of action embrac-
ed in said complaint, and execute to
said defendants release and discharge
of any claims or causes of action
against them or either of them, not con
tanned or set forth in said complaint,
that the said defendants, George Mapes
and Charles T. Bender, are ready and
willing and agree to pay this receiver,
Frank l.. Wildes, for the benefit of the
said receivership estate the sum of
100000. The receiver reports that he
verify believes it to be for +he best
interests of said receivership estate and
for the stockholders and creditors of
said Bank G. Trust company, that the
said sum of 100000 oe accepted upon
the conditions hereinbefore set forth.
The receiver asks that this court make
such order in the premises as to it may
seem advisable and for the best inter
ests of the reeeivership estate, and the
stockholders and creditors of the cor
poration, the State Bank & Trust com
pany.
Can the offer of $4,000 be accept
ed by the receiver and not release de-
stroy or injure his right of action
in other words, would a dismissal of
two of the nine defendants in the ac-
tion of Wildes, as receiver, against T..
b. Hickey etals, be release of the
others and operate as a bar to the fur
ther prosecution of the case against
the remaining direetorss
In presenting this question to the
court, counsel for the receiver differed
as to what the result would be in the
event of the acceptance by the receiver
of the 100000. They are of one mind,
however, that these defendants in the
case of Wildes vs.. Hickey eft al. are
joint tort feasors and then follows the
Feitation of authorities which seem 20
hold opposite views as to whether the
dismissal of one tort feasor releases or
dismsses the remaining tort feasors.
In this / am not agreed with counsel.
This court has heretofore held that this
action is not one in tort for damages,
either in form or theory. 1t charges
all the defendants with responsibility
for the losses enumerated and deserib-
ed in the complaint and demands mere
ly an accounting for such losses. The
| liability, if any, as previously decided
is joint merely against the directors
of bank where a point liability ex-
lists, as il does here, dismissal or re-
lease Of one director would be release
of all.
The petition is denied.