Arizona republican., 1913-07-30
The Farmers & Merchants Bank Files Petition in Federal Court Asking Ex- tension of Receivership to Judgment of Court
HELD AGAINST e
 TRUST COMPANY
Makes Startling Allegations Against Former and Pres ent Officers of Company, But Exempts Receiver from Any Blame

The Farmers and Merchants Bank, through it's attorneys, Paul Renau Ingles, yesterday afternoon filed in the United States district court for the district of Arizona an intervening petition in the now well known case of Charles Clark ct al against the Arizona Mutual Savings and Loan association and the Arizona Trust company defendants, both of which defendant companies have for some time been in the hands of receiver, MT. Sims Ely. The petition asks that the receivership of the com panies heretofore existing be so ex- tended as to take in the judgment obtained in the superior court of Maricopa county some time back against the defendant trust company by the bank; that the court take jurisdiction over the controversy for all purposes so that the various pri- critics of the claimants may be es-
 tablished. and that the properties of
 the company which are now being
 distributed be taken full possession of
 for the purpose of doing justice to
 all claimants according to the prior
 right of each claim; that the Farm
 CTS and Merchants Bank, by reason
 of it's judgment against the company,
 be given a preference in the distri-
 button of the assets of the company
 that subpOenas be issued out of the
 court for A. J. Edwards, w T.
 Smith, J. T. Dunlap and J. w. Walk CT to answer to the matters and
 things set forth in the petition; and
 that the above named paries be re-
 quired to render a full account of
 their earnings collectively and singly
 with the properties of the defendant
 trust company; and such other fur
 ther and different relief as the court may deem proper and just in the
 premises.
 Following this filing w. M Seabury
 representing a number of the peti- tioning Stockholders of the company who, in connection with c. w. Clark entered the suit which resulted in the receivership. filed a motion in the federal court asking that the receiv- CT of the defendant trust company
 be instructed to declare dividend of the assets of the company that lhave heretofore been collected and
 now repose in the possession of the receiver. In this connection the ale gation is made that the receiver for the property, by reason or another intervening petition filed some time back by Benton Dick, Esq, the re- ceiver prefers a court order relative to a distribution before making the same
 But to return to the petition of the Farmers and Merchants Bank It is one of the longest and bulkiest petitions that has been filed in the United States court here in many a long day. It contains twenty eight closely typewriter pages, setting forth the entire history of the case of, first, the Farmers and Mer- chants Bank against the Arizona Trust company, and the case of the Arizona Mutual Savings and Loan with the Arizona Trust whereby the | former was completely swallowed and ! then goes into little financial his 1 tory of, its own.
 | The Judgment for which priority is asked in the petition was for $1S,5OO
 obtained on July F, 1913 by the
 Farmers' and Merchants Bank, against the defendant trust company, thersuit in the case having been filed I a great deal more than q year before i that. and several months before the 1 institution of the receivership pro- l ceedings. When the judgment was l finally granted it bore interest from l April 9th, 1912, the date the suit was | flied. It is stated that at the time
 the judgment was rendered the re- ! ceiver was in full and complete pos l session of all the assets of the de- I Pendant companies, but that the De- | titioning bank could not without con- l tempt of the United States court is sue an execution upon the properties
 of the defendants.
 Then follows the most sensational sort of allegations against the former l president of the company, one A. J. | Edwards, who is now no longer in | Arizona, but who resigned from the l officership and directorship of the company a little more than a year I ago, and w T. Smith was elected to I sit in ihs stead. It is alleged with I force and regularity throughout the l petition that Edwards did conver,.
 use and apply-and several other Ethings equally Squally-to his ser vice and profit, and without reim- i bursing the company in any way | whatsoever, several thousands of dol lars of the assets of both the defend | ant companies. There are fully a | dozen items in this connection dis 1 charged at the head of Edwards.
 | Then follow allegations that bring | w. T. Smith and John T. Dunlap as l successors in interest to Edwards, to the foreground. This connection is the basis for the request that they
 be asked to accour. for their deal ings in connection with the assets of l the company. It is alleged however l that these gentlemen made several