Court Opinion

ID: 7939471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 23:13:14.234909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:33:40.083265
License: Public Domain

Grant, C. J.
(after stating the facts). This bill was filed by the First National Bank before a receiver was appointed, and the bank will be treated in this opinion as the complainant. The bank insists that this is a trust fund, to which it is entitled as the owner of the notes. Defendant Wright insists upon the correctness of the decree for the following reasons:
1. That there is no evidence to prove the authority of Sharp to sign the alleged agreement for Wells, Stone & Co.
2. That the bill is defective for omitting necessary parties, viz., Brown and the representatives of the estate of Leaton, deceased.
3. That it is not a trust fund.
4. That the First National Bank took these notes after they were past due, and therefore subject to all equities and defenses which Wells, Stone & Co. would have as against the original holders.
Wells and Stone died before this bill was filed. Defendant Wright is the surviving member of the firm. Leaton & Upton were indebted in about $72,000, of which there was due to the Commercial Bank about $20,000, *481and to the First National Bank about $9,000. Mr. Wright was the president and the largest stockholder of the Commercial Bank, and insisted upon the payment of Leaton & Upton’s indebtedness to it. Judge Moore, of Saginaw, was the attorney for Wells, Stone & Co., negotiated the transaction, and drew the contract between the parties. He, in behalf of Wells, Stone & Co., insisted that Mr. Leaton should he absolutely discharged from all liability for the debts of Leaton & Upton, and informed Mr. Fancher and the other parties that Wells, Stone & Co. would have nothing to do with any disputes between Leaton & Upton and Brown & Leaton and Brown as to their liability on the disputed notes, and would only make this loan on condition that Mr. Leaton should be absolutely discharged. This was evidently assented to. Discharges were executed, and $16,595.54 was paid to the Commercial Bank, and $6,396.83 to the First National Bank, by Wells, Stone & Co., each bank making a rebate in order to carry out the arrangement. The other creditors formed a syndicate, took other lands in payment of the debts due them, and released Leaton. By the agreement between Brown & Leaton and Wells, Stone & Co. for the loan of this $36,000, Brown & Leaton agreed to cut and manufacture the logs upon these lands into lumber, and turn the proceeds over to Wells, Stone & Co., in payment of the loan and for advances which they had agreed to make. Brown & Leaton appear to have run behind, and to have become indebted to Wells, Stone & Co. in an amount much greater than the $36,000. On May 15, 1894, they made a settlement, which was signed by Brown and Leaton and their wives, by Mr. Wright, and the executors of the last wills and testaments of Mr. Wells and Mr. Stone. This settlement was sweeping in its provisions, including all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, claims, and demands, in law or in equity, which said first parties, and each of them, had against Wells, Stone & Co., and the latter released and discharged Brown & Lea-*482ton from all indebtedness to them. On May 16, 1894, the Commercial Bank executed a release to Wells, Stone & Co. and said Wright and the several estates of Wells and Stone from all claims and demands of every kind growing out of said agreement of July 8, 1889, and also another agreement which bore date January 12, 1889. When these settlements were made, the bank delivered to Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Leaton notes to the amount of $38,000, including the two in question. The title to some of this land conveyed to the bank under the settlement stood in the names of Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Leaton. Brown & Leaton negotiated the arrangement by which these notes were delivered. Afterwards Mrs. Brown transferred the note to the First National Bank, the sole consideration being the release of her husband from all the paper at the bank of which he was either indorser or maker. Brown at that time was insolvent. The release of Mr. Leaton upon similar notes was the consideration for the transfer by Mrs. Leaton of the note she held, Mr. Leaton also being insolvent.
Under this state of facts, we think there are two complete answers to the complainant’s case:
1. The settlement of May 15, 1894, was signed by Mr. Brown, Mrs. Brown, Mr. Leaton, and Mrs. Leaton, and settled all transactions between them and Wells, Stone & Co. The settlement with the bank on May 16, 1894, recited the settlement between Brown & Leaton and Wells, Stone & Co., the transfer of certain lands to the bank, and the bank, in consideration thereof, released and discharged Wells, Stone & Co. By this settlement, Brown, Leaton, and their wives released Wells, Stone & Co. from all liabilities, which included all claim to this fund which Brown and Leaton, or either of them, ever had. They made no reservation of this claim, and as to them it was settled and disposed of. They could not revive the claim by having the notes transferred to their wives by the Commercial Bank. Evidently, the bank considered Brown & Leaton insolvent, and released them *483from liability on the notes they held against them, and surrendered them. It was of no consequence to whom they were transferred by the, bank.
2. If it be conceded that this fund was retained for the purpose stated, complainant has not shown that it was entitled to it. By the terms of the paper signed by Sharp, Wells, Stone & Co. were only under obligation to pay the money to' the holder of the notes if it should be determined that Leaton & Upton ought to pay them. As we understand the situation, Leaton & Upton were parties to the notes, and under legal obligations to pay to the then holder, the Commercial Bank; but it was insisted that equitably, and as_ between Leaton & Upton and Brown & Leaton and Brown, the latter should pay, and that was the question submitted to arbitration. That question has not been determined. There is no evidence in this record by which we can determine it. If it belonged to Brown & Leaton and to Brown to pay them, they have been more than paid by Wells, Stone & Co., and they have settled it. Neither Brown nor Leaton nor their wives could recover against Wells, Stone & Co., and, if they could not; neither can their transferee, the bank, which purchased after due.
It is unnecessary to discuss the other questions raised. The decree is affirmed, with costs.
The other Justices concurred.