Article Text
DECISION IN FAVOR OF BANK RECEIVER AFFIRMED BY COURT The supreme court affirmed the judgment for the defendant given in the Third judicial district court, Judge Charles P. McCarthy presiding, in a decision handed down late yesterday in the case of Ben Q. Pettengill, as special deputy bank commissioner of the state of Idaho, and as receiver in the matter of winding up the affairs of the Boise State bank, versus William H. Blackman, Herbert F. Lemp, Edward Payne as trustees and Edward Payne. Chief Justice Budge wrote the decision. In separate opinions Justice Morgan and Justice Rice concur. The litigation-arose over the action of Pettengill as receiver of the bank, against Blackman and Payne for the purpose of quieting title to lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of block No. 13, Riverside addition to Boise. Herbert F. Lemp was also made a party defendant but the case was dismissed as to him. The case came before the supreme court on appeal by the plaintiff from an adverse judgment entered by the district court. It was set forth in the complaint that the defendants claimed an interest or estate in the lots adverse to the Boise State bank, which Pettengill held without grounds, claiming the bank to be owner of the lots. AGREEMENT CLAIMED. As an affirmative defense and in answer to the claims of the bank made through the receiver, it was set forth that Blackman was the holder of a certificate of deposit of the bank; that on or about Nov. 3, 1911, he informed the bank he desired to cash the certificate; that the bank entered into an agreement with him that if he did not cash the certificate or insist on immediate payment and would consent to extending the time on it to May 1, 1913, the certificate could bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent and the bank would cause the debt to be secured by a mortgage upon the lots in controversy. Payne gave Blackman, it is recited. his promissory note for $14,144.14 and at the same time executed and delivered to him a mortgage on the lots. Blackman claimed that neither the note nor the debt has been paid. TITLE IN THE BANK. "The trial court," recites the supreme court decision, "found that the legal title of the property in question was in the bank. This is clearly wrong but is probably an oversight, inasmuch as the point does not seem to have been regarded law material by either appel-
