Court Opinion

ID: 8861681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:50:22.941862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:50.689403
License: Public Domain

PHILIPS, District Judge.
I concur in the concurring opinion herein of Judge SANBORN in the following particulars: In respect of the cause of action based on the distribution of the stock dividend in 1890, I hold that the three-years statute of limitation applies, for the reason that the only trusts which are not reached or affected by the statute of limitations are such technical and continuing trusts as belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of equity and are not cognizable at law.' Keeton’s Heirs v. Keeton’s Adm’r, 20 Mo. 530. I also concur in the view of Judge SANBQBN respecting the measure of damages resulting from the disposition of the shares of increased capital stock of the bank. I concur in the view expressed by Judge THAYER respecting the Quapaw Mills transaction, with the qualification that it is based on the averments of the bill, whereby it is made to appear that the directors of the bank acquired and conducted this property as an independent speculation rather than as a means, according to the best judgment of the directors, of securing an indebtedness to the bank. If this property in fact was taken by the directors solely for the purpose of enabling the bank ultimately to secure the debt owing to it, and in the progress of its operation and management it became necessary, in the honest judgment of the directors, to advance the money to enable the mill to be successfully operated, so as ultimately to work out the best interests of the bank in the property, I do not think the directors should be held liable for bad judgment in the transaction.