Court Opinion

ID: 9641702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:38:30.031487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.217213
License: Public Domain

GRONER, Associate Justice
(dissenting).
I think the decree should be reversed and the case remanded for trial on the merits.
I am in agreement with the opinion of this court that, if the contract sued on is against public policy, the court may not grant relief, even though the parties are in pari delicto. And I also think that if, on a trial, it should appear that the purpose of the agreement was to create a fictitious market in order to induce the public to purchase shares in the bank at a price higher than their real value, the agreement would be void as against public policy. But I do not think the bill states such a case.
It charges that certain directors and stockholders of the bank “were desirous of maintaining a reasonable market price for the capital stock of the District National Bank of Washington, D. C. by *847avoiding the inevitable consequences of -a large block or blocks of the said stock being sold upon the Washington Stock Exchange with little or no regard for price, to the disadvantage of and loss to the said bank and as well as its stockholders, depositors and borrowers and the general banking and other interests of the community.” To carry out this plan, the parties appointed one of their number to “buy and sell the said stock in such blocks, at such times, at such prices, and upon such terms and conditions as he should deem advisable.”
It is not apparent from the bill that the purpose was to depress the price of the stock so as to prevent competitive bidding, and it does not appear that it was to advance the price and thus create a fictitious market, either by false rumors or in any other illegal way. If the purpose of the agreement was not to suppress competition, nor to improperly advance the price of the stock, nor to create a false market, but was confined to supporting the market against unusual conditions; i. e., the dumping of large blocks of stock at one time which the market could not normally sustain, and if the purpose was wholly for the protection of the rights of the stockholders and depositors, and this consistently with the rights of the public, as is alleged, the contract was not, in my opinion, illegal; and I can find no case which so holds.
Justice STEPHENS joins in this opinion.