Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1912-08-05
RES|GNAT Of
JUDGE NORTON
Receiver of Va. Safe Deposit
and Trust Corporation
Quits.
HIS REASON is GIVEN
Decision of Court of Appeals That
Receivers Must Bring Suit Against
Directors is Reason.

Judge ]. K. NJ. Norton, one of the
receivers of the Virginia Safe Deposit
and Trust Corporation has resigned
his office as receiver and the reslgna-
ton was accepted this morning by
Judge Louis C. Barley of the Corpo-
ration Court.
Judge Norton gives as his reason
for resigning that the Virginia Court
of Appeals has held that the receiv-
ers must bring any suits that may be
desired against the directors of the
corporation and that as he was dir
ector six months prior to the failure
of the trust company he felt that it
is his duty to resign. Judge Norton,s
resignation is as follows:
"To Louis C. Barley, judge of the
Corporation Court for the City of Al
exandria, Virginia:
"The Court of Appeals having held
that receivers must bring any suits
that may be desired against the dl-
rectors of corporation, and as l, at
one time, was one of the directors OF
the said defendant, resigning about
six months before receivers were ap-
pointed, it becomes my duty to resign
as receiver.
Respectfully submitted,
J. K. NJ. NORTON.
The resignation was presented to
Judge Barley in chambers this morn
ing and he entered an order accept
ing it. At the same sinle he appoint
ed Walter C. Foster special commits
sioner in chancery 10 settle the ac-
counts of the receivers up-to-date and
report such settlement to the court.
Mr.. Foster was authorized to employ
bookkeeper or accountant to aid HIM
in the work is he deems the same ad-
visable.
Judge Norton was appointed one OF
the receivers of the trust company on
the day following the closing OF Its
doors. December 2Sth, 1910. The 9TH
er receiver was John S. Barbour who
was afterwards replaced by Howard
W. Smith.
The decision of the Supreme Court
of Virginia, to which Judge Norton re-
fers in his letter of resignation, is not
one brought in connection with the
failure of the Virginia Safe Deposit
and Trust Corporation, but is the case
of Sanders VS.. The Bank of Mecklen-
burg, which is a parallel case. In
this case, which was decided by the
Supreme Court on June 18th, 1912, 1t
was held that to permit creditors OF al
insolvent corporation to sue It's deb
tors would lead to intimate confusion
At the same time the creditors have
rights which must be protected, and
if those upon whom the law has i'm
posed the duty of guarding such
rights, fail and refuse, after proper
request, to take such steps as may be
necessary for their protection, the!
NAV themselves bring suit, and thus
set in motion the judicial machinery
of this court. In the Mecklenburg case
the depositors filed suit against Ger
tain directors of the bank in whlcf
they alleged that the bank failed oW'
ing to the careless negligence and ut
ter disregard to their duties as direct
ors. The bill was demurred to by th'
directors, and the Circuit Court sus'
tanned the demurrer and dismissed the
bill on the ground that the suit shoul'
have been brought by the receivers
instead of by the various stockholders
and the Supreme Court sustained TINS
decision.
Another important point brough
out in the decision which will have al
important bearing on the AleXandrl;
case is that the omission in the bill T.
| state precisely at what time the dlrec
tors assumed the duties of their Oh
fee or when the complainants becam
depositors, does not render the bill de
murrable.
In reference to suit against direct
ors who died either before or after TN
failure, the court held that upon Tn
death of an Individual, all rights o
action which survived, passed to HI
personal representatives, and are TO D
asserted by him.
This decision will have most I'm