The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-03
SANBORN SUES AGAIN.
Renews Action Against Linscott Bank
in Federal Court.

H. B. Sanborn of Amarillo, Tex.
this morning filed in the United States
circuit court a new action against the
Linscott State bank, of Holton, Kan,
to recover five shares of Vendors
lien notes valued at $14,50 The case
tried in the circuit court this week, re-
suited in verdict for the defendants.
Sanborn's attorneys Immediately filed
new action, in which the allegations
against the bank are stronger than in
the original petition.
In the petition filed today Sanborn
sets forth the statement that he bor-
rowed of the National bank of Holton
$4,000 secured by the Vendors lien
notes, which were first lien on 1900
acres of land in Oldham county, Tex
as known as the Bravo Ranch. which
property is now in possession of a
member of the Linscott bank. San
born says that the National bank
transferred the note and collateral to
the Linscott bank and that fake sale
was held by the Linscott bank where
by the collateral was sold at sacri-
flee, although he claims that the notes
were and are worth face value with
interest added.
In the new petition Sanborn claims
that he did not know the exact date
his note became due and the bank did
not send him the customary notice.
The note, he learned later, was due
December 1909. He says that be-
fore the customary banking hours
ton sought to have the sheriff of the
county hold an immediate sale of this
collateral. A deputy refused to make
the sale. Then the cashier held the
sale himself on the steps of the court
house. He says the sale was not prop
erly advertised and no effort was
made to get competent bidders. Ac-
cording to the petition the collateral
was sold to w. K. Linscott for S.
POS, and that the one or two bidders
at the sale were not financially able
to buy the security and were acting as
figure heads for the officers of the
bank.
After the sale it is alleged that Lins-
colt in payment for the securities
gave his check on the defendant
bank for the purchase price of the COL
lateral, which check the bank honor
ed, although Linscott had at the time
an overdraft of $5,422.30. On the
same date, the plaintiff alleges, Lins-
colt had in the bank an unsecured
note in the amount of $4,000, bak-
ing the total liabilities to the bank of
$11,422.3O.
The day following the sale, the bank
notified Sanborn's agent, c. H. White
head, of Kansas City, of the sale,
and sent him a remaining balance of
$3.50, which was left after deducting
the amount que on pldlntlIS S0,UUU
note On Dec. 6, Sanborn himself re-
ceived notice of the sale and says 1t
was the first knowledge he had the
note was due. He then wired the
Linscott bank that he was ready to
pay the note and returned the $3.50
check. The bank. 1t is alleged. re-
fused to receive payment of the note.
Sanborn says that on Dec. 6. the
overdraft of w. K. Linscott was re-
duced by a deposit to his credit Of a
check on the same bank of $5,205,
given by George Linscott, although
George Linscott only had a balance in
the bank that day of $1,125. His ac-
count was replenished by borrowing
of the defendant bank $4,000 at per
cent. This note was due June 6, 1910.
Sanborn claims that this Informal
ton shows the bank was trying to
take advantage of him and as it did
not give him proper notice of the
date his note, due and that the sale
of the collateral was illegal and
should be declared null and void by
the court He asks for Judgment
of $14.500 with interest, less the
amount he owes on the $4,000 note.
W. K. Linscott is not made a party
to the action for the reason that he
now lives in Mobile, Ala. and is out
side the Jurisdiction of the court.