Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Supreme Court Digest the Court.
Grace Mitchell et Banking Corporation Appeal from Lewis and Clark county. Action by the plaintiffs as creditors the defendant bank to enforce the double liability of its stockholders thereto to have the reduction of its capital stock from half to $250,000 brought about meeting of the stockholders February 28, 1922, declared as The bank suspended on 1923. The defendant stockholders to the complaint on the ground that did state cause action for failure to allege that the action had been instituted three years after their liability stockholders was created and demurrers were sustained Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Mr. Justice Stark The section admittedly controlling to when action this must be section 9061. Revised Codes, which after particularly providing that other of the Codes relating to limitations actions shall not apply in cases affecting actions against directors stockholders of corporation enforce liability created by law, declares that such latter actions "must be brought within three years after the discovery by the ME party of the facts upon which the liability was The plaintiffs contended that the period began run May 1923, when the bank closed Its doors, while the defendants maintained that the stockholders liability was created at the time the plaintiffs the money lost by in the failure in the bank, which 1914. the bank then having issued to them certificates of deposit which renewed from time to time, that the three years began to run that time, and that therefore the action barred. The action on February 27, that statute grants right which did not exist common prescribes the time within which the right be exercised the of the right and to such right must by his complaint that within the statutory time and he does his pleading does not state action. Held. that the liability of the stockholders created the time the primary liability the bank came into being. to-wit at time the plaintiffs their deposits recelved their original certificates deposit, which, having once attached. was affected by subsequent renewals: that complaint did not set forth that the action commenced within three years after the liability therefore did not state of action and the defendants' demurrers propsustained. All the justices concur specially, stating that they do so against their Inclinations but that under the language section 9061 and authoritles generally, no other conclusion than that reached admissible. "Nevertheless is within our province to point which think should receive the curative touch of the lawbody. In view of the restricoperation the is suggested that should be amended at least to the extent of It harmonious those other of our law which provide that an action may be within certain time 'after the cause of action shall E. Pew. of Helena. for Appellants E. Day. Horsky Walsh Nalsh, Miller. Paul and David R. Smith, of Helena, for ReEL Armold et al. v. Custer County Appeal from order of triet court Custer county refusing to grant an injunction and temporary restraining order, Orders affirmed. Opinion by Mr. Custer having obtained certificates of tax of more than 1,000 tracts or lote of land. delinquent tax sales on which to thing decided to take steps to obtain deeds thereto. In order to enable the county clerk to obtain necessary information relative to each tract lot essential making out proper notices to each owner, gagee or assignee of mortgage. the county commissioners into contract with the Custer Abstract company to furnish such Information. agreeing to pay $5 report each tract or bot, having been made apparent the board that the clerk could not obtain certain information from in his office, which inforwas in possession of the company which readily be furnished from "tract Index" kept by the company. which relating property obtained not only from the clerk's records but from those kept by the of court from other The plaintiff taxpayers contended that all the information necessary could by the Herk from his own records, that the expanse was that the board was without power make such contract, that If the clerk could not obtain all the information needed make out notices which would hold water, he should do the best could with what he had until legislature could enset proper legislation on the The principal question for dewas whether the board had Implied power to Into the contract, the statutes not granting that power expressly Held, that boards of county comsarily implied from that which is granted expressly Held. that the general rule to that the board of county may contract to have work done which is necessary to the care ment of the business and affaire of the county the preservation of county property, the does the duty county official to do such Held, that chapter 92. Laws of 1927, relating the giving of notice by county application of for tax simply what he must In the not he must get the information to enable him to what he is obey required to do; that being apparent that his are insufficient to furnish the required by given In notices, the board could adopt any reasonable method to bring about the desired result, and that the method adopted being the only reliable, peditious and to pursue, its action must be upheld on the theory that It had the implied power to do what did. George Farr, R. B. Hayes and W. H. O'Connell of Miles City, for appellants Loud & Leavitt, Rudolph Nelstead and H. E. Herrick of Miles Olty for re-
