12068. Farmers State Bank (Belfield, ND)

Bank Information

Episode Type
Suspension → Closure
Bank Type
state
Start Date
February 1, 1921*
Location
Belfield, North Dakota (46.885, -103.200)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini
Short Digest
926dffbd

Response Measures

None

Description

The bank closed its doors on February 1, 1921 and was placed in receivership. Subsequent articles discuss receivers (Adam A. Lefor, then George Laney), lawsuits and claims against the former receiver; no article describes depositor runs or a reopening. Thus this is a suspension resulting in permanent closure with receivership and litigation.

Events (7)
1. February 1, 1921 Suspension
Cause
Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details
Bank deemed insolvent and closed its doors on February 1, 1921; placed in receivership thereafter.
Newspaper Excerpt
institution closed its doors on February 1, 1921.
Source
newspapers
2. February 1, 1921* Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
was appointed receiver of the Farmers' State Bank of Belfield by Bank Examiner O. E. Lofthus shortly after the institution closed its doors on February 1, 1921. He continued in that capacity until April 1, 1922, when his removal was ordered and Laney was appointed in his stead. (Bismarck Tribune, 1922-08-26).
Source
newspapers
3. April 1, 1922 Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
He continued in that capacity until April 1, 1922, when his removal was ordered and Laney was appointed in his stead.
Source
newspapers
4. August 25, 1922 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
Charging that Adam A. Lefor, while acting as receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield, violated his trust, juggled thousands of dollars in securities and has negligently, wilfully... George Laney ... has brought suit against Lefor in district court asking judgment for the whole amount dissipated or squandered by Lefor and that the latter be required to make full restitution for his unlawful acts.
Source
newspapers
5. May 16, 1923 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
The action brought by the guaranty fund commission against Adam A. Lefor, as receiver of the Farmers State bank of Belfield, was dismissed by District Judge H. L. Berry when it came before him this week on a demurrer of the defense.
Source
newspapers
6. January 24, 1924 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
Law Suit Is Started Against Adam Lefor, Former Receiver of Bank... The suit is against Lefor as former receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield ... charges that Lefor caused losses approximating $25,000 in the
Source
newspapers
7. January 3, 1925 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
The supreme court ... held that the appointment of Baird as general receiver of closed banks was legal. The court, in deciding the appeal of Adam A. Lefor, former receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield, in the suit instituted against him by L. R. Baird, general receiver of closed banks, for an accounting, held that the appointment of Baird as receiver was legal.
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (7)
1. August 25, 1922 Grand Forks Herald Grand Forks, ND
Article from Grand Forks Herald, August 25, 1922

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Northwestern News violation of his trust as receiver and to the detriment and disadvantage of the creditors of the Farmers' State AGUE BANKER bank, took out of the assets of said bank certain bills receivable held by him as receiver. aggregating. without HARGED WITH interest accrued thereon. $3,388.84, or thereabouts; that all of such notes were valid obligations of the makers; that all of them were collectible and WASTING FUNDS worth the several face amounts shown thereon, together with interest from date thereof; that the said Lefor. as receiver. assigned and transferred Lefor, Receiver of such bills receivable to the Citizens' State bank at Belfield in exchange for Belfield Institution, is certain bills receivable of said bank, which were then and have been at all Plaintiff. times since uncollectible and worthless to the creditors of the insolvent bank Restitution Asked. lckinson, N. D., Aug. 25.-ChargIn concluding the charges the plainthat Adam A. Lefor, while acting tiff prays judgment: receiver of the Farmers' State That Lefor be required to account of Belfield, violated his trust. for all the transactions had by him thousands of dollars in securias receiver of the Farmers' State and has negligently, willfully. bank. wingly and fraudulently dissipated That the detriment caused by his squandered the assets of the said transactions to said bank and institution for the purpose of the amount to which the assets of himself and his friends, the bank have been squandered and Laney, present receiver of the dissipated by reason of his negligence has brought ouit against Lefor and conduct be ascertained and delistrict court asking judgment for termined. whole amount dissipated or That the defendant pay to the andered by Lefor and that the latplaintiff the amount dissipated or apbe required to make full restitupropriated by him as aforesaid. for his unlawful acts." That he be required to make resardent leaguer. alleged memtitution to the plaintiff wholly for his of the "inner circle" and whip said unlawful acts, his negligence and the organization leaders in Stark his misconduct. on the west Slope, was apThat the plaintiff have such other receiver of the bank by Bank relief as is equitable and preper. miner O. E. Lofthus shortly after It is expected that the case will be institution closed its doors on tried at the November term of the ruary 1. 1921. He continued in Stark county district court. C. L. capacity until April 1: 1922. Young of the law firm of Newton, his removal was ordered and Dullam & Young of Bismarck is atwas appointed in his stead. torney for Laney. three weeks ago Lefor left Lefor was-appointed receiver of the kinson for an extended visit in Farmers' State Bank by the league many and Jugo-Slavia. Service of administration over the protest of complaint was made just as he stockholders in the institution and aboard the train. continued in that capacity until the ncluded in the allegations made appointment of Laney was ordered by Laney in the complaint is the the court. that Lefer who to also presi-

2. August 26, 1922 The Bismarck Tribune Bismarck, Mandan, ND
Article from The Bismarck Tribune, August 26, 1922

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

RECEIVER OF BANK IS SUED BY SUCCESSOR Adam Lefor of Stark County Is Accused by George Laney Dickinson, N. D., Aug. 26.-Charging that Adam A. Lefor, while acting as receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield, violated his trust, juggled thousands of dollars in securities and has negligently, wilfully, knowing and fraudulently dissipated and squandered the assets of the closed institution for the purpose of favoring himself and his friends, George Laney, present receiver of the bank, has brought suit against Lefor in district court asking judgment for the whole amount dissipated or squandered by Lefor and that the latter be required to make full restitution for his unlawful acts. Lefor, ardent leaguer, member of the "inner circle" and whip for the organization leader in Stark county and on the west Slope, was apointed receiver of the bank by Bank Examiner O. E. Lofthus shortly after the institution closed its doors on February 1, 1921. He continued in that capacity until April 1, 1922, when his removal was ordered and Laney was appointed in his stead. About three weeks ago Lefor left Dickinson for an extended trip in Germany and Jugo-Slavia. Service of the complaint was made just as he stepped aboard the train. Transferred Paper Included in the allegations made by Laney in the complaint is the charge that Lefor, who is also president of the Citizens State Bank of Belfield, a "competing institution," in violation of his trust as receiver and to the detriment of disadvantage of the creditors of the Farmers State bank, took out of the assets of said bank certain bills receivable held by him as receiver, aggregating, without interest accrued thereon, $3,333.84, or thereabouts; that all of such notes were valid obligations of the makers; that all of them were collectible and worth the several face amounts shown thereon, together with interest from date thereof; that the said Lefor, as receiver, assigned and transferred such bills receivable to the Citizens State Bank of Belfield in exchange for certain bills receivable of said bank, which were then, and have been at all times since uncollectible and worthless to the creditors of the insolvent bank." Demands Accounting Laney further alleges that "Lefor had information that certain of the notes of the Farmers State bank exchanged as aforesaid, would be paid and that they were paid immediately after the exchange took place; that the Citizens State bank received, and has since retained the proceds and that the amount of collections made upon such notes are unknown to the and that Lefor has refused with the to plaintiff comply demand of and the plaintff's to restore the proceeds account fully for the assets so diverted."

3. May 16, 1923 The Bismarck Tribune Bismarck, Mandan, ND
Article from The Bismarck Tribune, May 16, 1923

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

ACTION DISMISSED Dickinson, N.D., May 16-The action brought by the guaranty fund commission against Adam A. Lefor, as receiver of the Farmers State bank of Belfield, was dismissed by District Judge H. L. Berry when it came before him this week on a demurrer of the defense. The guaranty commission instituted the action about a year ago on behalf of George Laney who succeeded Mr. Lefor as receiver of the bank.

4. January 24, 1924 The Bismarck Tribune Bismarck, Mandan, ND
Article from The Bismarck Tribune, January 24, 1924

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# CHARGE WASTE IN HANDLING BELFIELD BANK Law Suit Is Started Against, Adam Lefor, Former Receiver of Bank SAYS LOSS $25,000 What is generally expected here to be the first of numerous legal actions growing out of the alleged extravagant method of handling closed banks by receivers named by the state banking board when it was controlled by Nonpartisan League officials has been filed in the Burleigh county district court against Adam Lefor, Dickinson banker and active in Nonpartisan League circles. The suit was instituted by L. R. Baird, general receiver of closed banks in the state, named under the law of the last legislature which placed the jurisdiction of all closed banks under the supreme court and district court of Burleigh county for the purpose of reducing expenses in administering their affairs. During the administration of many closed banks by Nonpartisan-appointed receivers many charges of wasteful management were made. The suit is against Lefor as former receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield and S. A. Olsness, commissioner of insurance, and the state bonding fund which bonded him for $15,000. No specific sum is demanded, but an accounting in court is sought. The suit charges that Lefor caused losses approximating $25,000 in the

5. February 14, 1924 The Bismarck Tribune Bismarck, Mandan, ND
Article from The Bismarck Tribune, February 14, 1924

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

BOND SUITS MAY FOLLOW State Bonding Fund Disapproves Claims Suits against the State 1 Bonding Fund on the part of Ransom and LaMoure counties may follow refusal of the bonding fund board to approve claims presented to it. The board disapproved the claim of Ransom county on the bonds of the county treasurer and county commissioners for $24,382.58 for money in a closed bank, disapproved the claim of Bottineau county on the treasurer of that county for $11,575.86 for the same reason and disapproved of the claim of L. R. Baird, general receiver, on the bond of Adam Lefor as receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield for alleged misuse of funds. The board allowed the claim of LaMoure county of $5,000 on the bond of Robert E. Powers, former sheriff, and the claim of Larimore school district No. 44 of $5,000 on the bond of P. L. Arms as district treasurer.

6. January 3, 1925 The Bismarck Tribune Bismarck, Mandan, ND
Article from The Bismarck Tribune, January 3, 1925

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

BANK RECEIVER LAW IS FOUND TO BE VALID Supreme Court, in Decision, Declares it was Within Legislature's Power BAIRD APPOINTMENT Court Also Holds That Receiver was Entitled to Accept Position The legislative act of 1923, consolidating receiverships of closed under the was the supreme banks district futional court, by Burleigh, declared court, county consti- in an opinion announced late yesterday. The validity of the act was contested by W. H. McIntosh, who had been appointed receiver of the Mohall State Bank by a district court judge. Several receivers who had been named by district courts declined to recognize the appointment of a general receiver to succeed them. The sole question involved in the case, the opinion, written by Justice A. M. Christianson said, was whether or not chapter 137, laws of 1923, is unconstitutional. This act provided that the supreme court should assume original jurisdiction all cases or in receivership trans- the mit matters county Burleigh all receivership district the court. to In pursuance of this, supreme court lodged receivership supervision in the Burleigh county district court and appointed District Judge C. M. Cooley of Grand Forks to sit in such cases. Power of Legislature The court, in its opinion, held that "the legislature in the exercise constitutional powers as the body of the may of lawmaking its under state prescribe the conditions which a banking corporation organized under the laws of this state shall be deemed insolvent; authorize the Attorney-General of the state to commence an action for the liquidation of such bank, or banks; vest the district court of Burleigh county with jurisdiction of such actions, and require the supreme court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurto isdiction over inferior courts, designate a district judge to hear and determine such actions and appoint a receiver." The court. in answering the ob jection raised that the legislative act fixed the venue of all actions by or against the receiver of a closed bank, said that legislation dealt only with acts involving insolvency of banking corporations and "there was no intention to make any changes in the existing laws as regards the venue of suits by or against the receivers of insolvent banking corporations. Affirm Lefor Case The court, in deciding the appeal of Adam A. Lefor, former receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield, in the suit instituted against him by L. R. Baird, general receiver of closed banks, for an accounting, held that the appointment of Baird as receiver was legal. Lefor contended in the law suit that since Mr. Baird was a member of the state senate of 1923, which enacted the law providing for consolidation of receiverships of closed banks, Baird's appointment was in violation of section 39 of the Constitution which provides that no member of the legislative assembly shall, during the term for which he was elected, be appointed or elected to any civil office, which shall have been created during the term for which he was elected, nor shall any member receive any civil appointment from the governor during the term for which he was elected. Mr. Baird was appointed general receiver of closed banks after the 1923 session by District Judge c. M. Cooley, named by the supreme court to preside in receivership actions in the Burleigh district court. The supreme court, holding Mr. Baird's was valid, said that of appointment "power appointment of of receivers equity," is inherent in courts and that, therefore, the legislature created no new office. The legislative intent, the court found, was to limit, rather than confer, power of receivership appointments, since it limited the number of general receivers to two. The compensation the was left by the legislature to court making the appointment, the opinion, written by Justice Nuessle, recites. Lefor, in appealing from Judge Cooley's decision. had alleged the 1923 act of the legislature was unconstitutional. The supreme court the Mohall bank case y is valid. Zuger and y held the act in Mr. Tillotson Baird. that of Bismarck represented

7. January 10, 1925 The Bismarck Tribune Bismarck, Mandan, ND
Article from The Bismarck Tribune, January 10, 1925

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT From Burleigh County L. R. Baird, as Receiver of the Farmers State Bank of Belfield, North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent. vs. Adam A. Lefor and State Bonding Fund and S. A. Olsness, as Commissioner of Insurance of the State of North Dakota, Defendants. Adam A. Lefor, Appellant. SYLLABUS: 1. An order overruling an objection to the jurisdiction of a judge to hear and determine a cause is not appealable under the provisions of Section 7841, C. L. 1913. 2. Chapter 137, S. L. 1923 is a constitutional enactment. State of North Dakota v. First State Bank of Jud et al followed and approved. 3. The designation of a district judge to hear and determine action for the liquidation of insolvent banking corporations under the provisions of Chapter 137, S. L. 1923, is not a designation to hear and determine actions brought by or against any receiver appointed by such judge pursuant to the provisions of said Chapter 137. Such actions stand in the same position as any other action insofar as the provisions of law relating to the venue thereof or the judges who shall sit in the trial of the same are concerned. 4. Chapter 137, S. L. 1923 provides a mode of procedure for the liquidation and winding up of insolvent banking corporations in accordance with well established equitable rules, and by providing for the appointment of a receiver by the court does not create a civil office within the meaning of that term as used in Section 39 of the Constitution. 5. A, receiver appointed under the provisions of Chapter 137, S. L. 1923 is not the holder of a civil office within the meaning of that term as used in Section 39 of the Constitution