Article Text
Vice Chancellor's Court. Before Vice Chancellor McCoun. DECISION. March 19 - Edward Boirgirard vs. John Delafield, President of the New York Banking Co, and others.-This was a motion for an injunction on the New York Banking Company, and the appointment of a receiver. In 1839 the Company agreed to loan the Hernando Railroad Cd pany, Mississippi, $200,000, ment for which was to be made in cotton, to be shipped to Mr Delafield. Joachim Hydecker, agent for the house of Boi affi, Boirgirard & Co., of Havre, agreed with the New York Banking Com. pany to advance the $200,000 to latter, and have the cot. ton sent to said house at Havre. He advanced $150,000, the Company being responsible for such; but only 182 bales of cotton were sent, when the Mississippi Company failed in its contract. A very small amount of money was remitted by the New York Banking Company, and a balance of $90,000 to $100,000 remains due to Bonaffi, Boirgirard & Co., of which house complainant was a member. He petitions for an injunction on the bank on the ground that it had failed in paying him his money; has ceased to do business; (it has been closing up for some months) did not make proper return to the Legislature agreeable to law. and in its return placed a debt for $110,000, due by Mr. Hubbard, President of the Columbus Insurance Co., Ohio, down as a portion of its good assets, but immediately afterwards took $40,000 in pay ment for the debt. Petitioner avers, also, that the directors have expressed an intention of placing the bank in other and strange hands, but even if they do not, justice to the creditors require the appointment of a receiver, as Mr. Delafield himself is indebted to the company in a large amount, being something like $69,000. The petition is opposed on the ground that the complainant is not a creditor of the company, his contract having been signed by the President alone, whereas the law requires that such contracts should be signed by both President and Cashier. The stockholders also aver that the Com. pany is not insolvent, and will be able to pay all de mands against it, and have a handsome surplus, provided the bank does not gointo the hands of a receiver. The Vice Chancellor, in giving his decision, showed that this court had power by law over the Free Banking institutions, treating them as incorporations. As to the objaction that the contract is signed only by the president, he thought it might stand as a defence in an action at law, but did not think this court, in its powers of equity, bound by it. The contract was evidently made by Mr. Dalafield on behalf of the bank, which was to get a profit on the sales of cotton sent to Havre, and actually received the money from complainment. Independant of this it had failed in making a proper return of its condition agreeably to the law of 1841, which requires all free banks to present a return'i January giving their situation then, and also their condition in the July previous. This is a wholesome9aw, and one which they should strictly be held to, and a way by which the free banks may be made useful and safe to the public. The Court considers the complainant entitled to come in as a creditor. Ordered, that the injunction be allowed, and a receiver appointed.
