Court Opinion

ID: 7908485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 22:03:13.698943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:32:30.612346
License: Public Domain

Harvey, J.
(concurring specially): I concur in the result reached, but wish to add this: Illness of a director is not a defense in an action of this kind. The statute does not make it so. In an effort to make state banks safe for depositors and others who place confidence in the integrity and reliability of bank officials, the legislature has designated certain duties and created certain responsibilities and liabilities of officers and directors. I see no reason for interpreting the statute to mean a less duty or a less liability than the statute provides. Illness always creates hardships, sometimes serious ones, but it does not relieve the maker of a promissory note of liability thereon. Neither should it relieve directors and officials of banks from the responsibilities and liabilities imposed by statute *689upon them by reason of the office or position which they have voluntarily assumed. Especially is this true when there is nothing in the statute to indicate a legislative intention to relieve such officers and directors from liability for that reason.