Norwich bulletin., 1914-01-03

on by the depositor and the bank.
There was no division of the business
of the bank into departments, but all
the business in the receiving and pay
ing out of money was done over the
same counter by the same employees.
There were over $500 depositors of
the bank at the time the commission
ers took their first action in April and
many of them were borrowers from the
bank.
Claim Right of Set OFFS.
In the execution of his trust as re-
ceiver Mr.. Thayer has attempted to
collect the money due from the bor-
rowing depositors, but instead of pay
ing the loans, the borrowers have
offered to set off their several depos-
it's against the amount OF the loans
and to pay the excess OF the lndeD1-
edness. These depositors claim the
right to share with all other deposit
ors to the extent of the balance of
their deposits and declare that this
rule should apply to both departments,
that is the general deposits and the
deposits in the savings bank depart
ment.
The receiver wants to know whether
the Thames Loan and Trust company
bears the same relation to all of its
depositors, Unfortunately; whether
the depositors in the so-called savings
bank department are preferred over
partment and other creditorss whether
they are entitled to be paid out of the
assets set aside for savings deposltorS
to the exclusion of other depos1tors
and creditors; whether they are limited
to the proceeds of such assets whether
they are entitled to share in the other
assets of the company if the assets set
aside for savings depositors are INSULT
oient to pay all of the savings depos-
itors in full; whether. if the savings
department depositorS are SO preferred
Or limited as to specific assets, the sum
| of So, 035.66 uninvested in the general
funds of the bank can be treated as
and included in investments set aside
for savings depositors; whether the
law of set-off as applied to debtors and
depositors of incorporated savings
banks in this state shall govern as the
depositors and borrows claim, or
whether the law of set-off as applied
to insolvent national banks shall gov
ern, and as a further question under
this same heading the receiver wants
TO know whether one rule shall apply
as to the debts and deposits in the
savings bank department and another
{ rule apply as to the debts and deposits
in the commercial department
Individual Cases.
Another case in which the receiver
wants advice is cited. James L. Case
of Norwich is indebted to the bank
in the sum of $500. as evidenced by
three promissory notes. the notes be-
ing assets of the savings bank depart
ment. Against one of the notes, for
$1,000, he has pledged his handbook,
which shows that he had $500, due
him from the bank, and against an
other note he has deposited a savings
handbook of the Chelsea Savings bank
of Norwich. on which there appears to
be due $624.70. The question is: Is he
entitled to a. right of SET off
e. B. Worthington of Norwich is
depositcr in the commercial depart
ment to the amount of $511.62. He is
an endorser of note made by his
wife, Mary E. Worthington, for $780,
The note is collectable from the maker
but Mr.. Worthingten claims the right
TO set off the amount of his deposit
against the amount of the note. The
800 in question was not paid to Mrs,
Worthington, but was credited TO her
husbands account in the commercial
department. Can this set-off be al
lowed?
Jacob Gordon is a depositor in the
commercial department to the amount
of $2926.02 and is a borrower from the
bank to the amount of S5,20O as evil.
denced by four notes. Two of the notes
are held in the savings bank depart
ment and amount to a total of $4,000.
With each of the notes the bank has
certain corporate stock as security al
though the stock is of doubtful value.
The two remaining notes are held in
the commercial department and total
$1,000. Some of the notes are past
due and others are payable on demand.
Gordon claims the right and has Of
fered to set off his deposit in the COM
mercial department against the total
indebtedness. Gordon, it is said, is able
to pay all of the Indebtedness without
resort to the deposit, and the receiver
wants to know what he shall do
Irving l.. Gardner owes the bank
$780, as evidenced by his note dated
June "a. 1913. and payable one month
after date, to the order of James H.
Hyde, and the note is endorsed by
Hyde. The note is held in the COM
mercial department and was given in
renewal of balance due on a former
note which had been surrendered to