Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-10-25

show that no opportunity was granted
or order made permitting the bank
to reduce its excessive loans. "al-
though it, had the ability to do SO,
and that in fact such excessive ESQ
termed) loans were in fact adequately
secured, and that further the banking
board and state examiner a not
therefore required the banks Of the
state to maintain their legal reserves
as strictly required"
It is held that such alleged excess
.sive loans, and debts Of $46,000 listed
as worthless, and the alleged failure
OF the bank to maintain its legal re-
serve at statutory requirements do
not Justify a finding of insolvency
and was unreasonably SO determin-
ed.!' M
Reciting the history Of the proceed
ings, Justice Bronson says that at 10.
a.. M. of the day on which the bank
was closed, a depositor was advised,
he testifies, to get his money out. Tin
st. Paul." says Bronson, sit was
known at 10 Il. m. that the bank was
going to be closed"
Settles Jurisdiction.
Settling the question Of original
jurisdiction, Judge Bronson says:
When this court takes cognizance
of a cause, in the exercise of it's orig
inal jurisdiction. it has the authority
to determine every issue of law and
Of fact that arises in the record"
Touching upon the duties Of the
state examiner, Bronson says under
the law "hc is neither a puppet nor a
figurehead.' The legislative intent is
plain that there should not be a fl
%nancial wreclling 3of banks in this
state (for a receivership is ordinarily
a financial wrecking of a bank or in
f;f,,fin> :. IL .o1yr> nc c..o A. - h 0ri,,in>,
that the law was designed to guard
against just such situations as tho
closing of the Minot bank, land suci'
arbitrary action without warning as
has been taken BY the respondents
herein"
Action Wa Arbitrary.
Even though it should be contend
ed that the state banking board did
possess the power to close such bank
and appoint a temporary receiver
thereover, nevertheless, the action as
taken by such banking board was un-
reasonable, arbitrary, unjust and can
not be upheld" says the judge, com
menting upon the 'strangeness" of the
fact that the respondents should have
seen fit to SO act at a time when the
bank examiner was out of h state
at is to be noted,' he continues
that the acts of the respondents from
Sthc beginning up to the time this
court interposed it's original jurisdic
ton disclose no desire and evidence
no attempt to protect the public mon
les, the guaranty fund, the monies 0
depositors, or the property of tn
stockholders by granting the bank an.
! chance Or opportunity to comply will
the findings of the banking board, o
10 rehabilitatc itself. There is III
other in which this procedur
can be characterized than arbitrar:
and contrary to both the spirit an
letter of the law. 1t both merits m
receives the condemnation of thi
COURT /
Justice Bronson comments on dis
elimination sought to be applied t
this bank in order hat it may b
deemed insolvent,> and asserts the de
termination of the court that there i
such a thing as a public conscience
and that these acts upon the record
submitted to this court were unwar
ranted, unreasonable and withou
foundation or law
The record diScloses to the our
that the state examiner placed j.
charge by this court has been diliEen
in performing his duties; that he ha
made every effort TO crn"crvc bot!
public and private interests, and tina
by his energies the bank, through tn