Article Text
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Effect of Forfeiture of Bank Charter-The Surplus Fund, After Payment of Debts, Goes to the Stockholders-Forfeiture Does Not Extinguish Debts Due the Bank. Milton Lum, plaintiff in error, vs. William Robertson, use of Ferguson.-In error to the District Court for the Eastern district of Texas. This cause was reported at length in this paper, and the facts will be remembered by the profession. The case is sumciently restated by the court, in their opinion, except that it was claimed below that the surplus fund in the hands of the officer of the court, after payment of all liabilities, became the property of the State, and did not become the property of the stockholders; but that question is not considered. Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the court. The decision of this court in Bacon et. al. vs. Robertson (18 How.) disposes of this case. The Commercial Bank of Natchez, Miss., by judicial forfeiture was deprived of its charter, and Robertson was appointed a trustee to wind up its affairs. On discharge of his trust, having paid all the debts of the insolvent corporation, a large surplus remained. The object of the suit in Bacon vs. Robertson was to establish the title of the stockholders to this surplus. Robertson refused to distribute the effects in his hands, claiming that since the dissolution of the corporation the stockholders had no rights which this court could recognize. But the court, in an elaborate opinion, decided that the trustee cannot deny the title of the stockholders to a distribution, and that by the 'laws of Mississippi and the general principles of equity jurisprudence the surplus of the assets which may remain after the payment of the debts and expenses belongs to the stockholders of the bank. After this decision Ferguson was appointed receiver and Robertson ordered to deliver to him the effects of the bank, which he held as trustee. In pursuance of this order the two notes on which the suit is brought were delivered to Ferguson, and the name of Robertson, in whom the legal title rests, is used to enforce this collection. Lum, a delinquent debtor of the bank, cannot plead the extinguishment of his debt by the judgment of forfeiture, for the court (in the case cited) say the debt exists and can be recovered, and that it is the duty of the trustee to reduce the property of the bank to money and distribute it among the stockholders. Nor can Lum be permitted to show, not having a meritorious defence to the suit, that Robertson, the nominal plaintiff, in whose name the suit is brought, is no longer the real party in interest. Ferguson, having the beneficial interest in the notes, has the right to use the name of Robertson to compel a recovery. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.