Article Text
PROTESTS A DECISION CONTRARY LAW State Bank Receiver Says It Amounts to Repeal and Interferes With Liquidations. Receiver Brownell of the State bank of Papillion has asked the supreme court for rehearing of the case in which that tribunal alAlbert Halpin, depositor, to file claim after the six months period fixed by law had expired. He says that the trial court had no discretion in the matter, in the face of the plain provisions of the and for the courts to hold that they have the right to give relief to judicial repeal of an act of the legislature. Halpin was farm hand who had left the Papillion neighborhood after he had made deposit in the bank. and being absent in another state had not heard of the failure until after the time limit for filing claims had expired. The receiver says that the court has hitherto fully recognized the application of this law the filing of claims: that its decision now is contrary to the plain language and clear intent and reason the statutes; that six other states where similar law in effect have recognized its validity, that the court fails to cite an applicable authority for its acts. The court decision criticised the statute in unmeasured words, pointing out that no diligent search is required to find creditors and other defects in notices to Attorneys for the receiver say that the guaranty fund is laboring under difficulties and its future is uncertain. Some of its difficulties have been due to court interpretation of legislative enactments so as to render them confused and uncertain. In this particular case the result is to lay down rule that will delay the final liquidation of failed bank, and make hazardous the payment of dividends during liquidation since later other claims may be allowed
