Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# ASSIGNEE PIENING GARNISHED.
A NEW MOVE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE T. C. SHOVE BANKING CO.
For some time J. E. McMahon of Minneapolis has been in the city. It was noised about that he was purchasing bank certificates on the defunct bank of T. C. Shove one of whose attorneys he was in the recent trials in which he was defendant. He offered a good price for certificates but paid no cash, stating it was possible that the face value for them might be secured, in which case he would share the profits with the original holder of the certificates. He secured $20,000 of the certificates. This is about the amount of money in the bands of the assigree not yet distributed among the creditors of the bank.
J. E. McMahon then garnisheed A. Piening, the assignee, stating in the affidavit that Piening had in his possession $20,000 which was due to Mc Mahon and asking that possession be surrendered to him. These proceedings were not generally known at first but when their import was realized it caused the greatest excitement among the creditors of the bank who were expecting another small dividend.
The theory on which McMahon works is that an assignment was never legally made as it was the act of T. C. Shove and not of the T. C. Shove Banking company, a corporation, Thus the question is raised whether Piening is an assignee of the bank. If he is not then the money in his hands is subject to garnishment. This McMahon wants to secure on the certificates he purchased. It is not known from whom he purchased the certificates, but they are to share with him in the profits should he succeed.
This proceeding it might be unsafe and unwise at this time to properly characterize, as the motive of the men engaged in it may not be what is apparent by their acts. There may be color of law, or rather perversion of law, in support of it. But if it be what it appears and is suspected, it is the most unblushing piece of legal rascality that was ever attempted and the man or men responsible for it have earned public execration. It is an attempt to deprive people who have lost about 75 per cent of what they had deposited in the bank of the modicum left. There may be some excuse for a bank failure, but a deliberate proceeding of this kind is an evidence of such heartless disregard of the rights of those who have suffered loss and bore it with patience, that one cannot contemplate it without righteous indignation. It is this torturing of law to serve the purpose of cruel greed which offers some color of justification to people who take the law into their own hands.
The general opinion of attorneys is that the proceeding will fail. If it does, those who assigned their certificates will lose half of the dividend yet to be declared, as it is understood no money has been paid over and they agreed to take one half of what might be recovered, so that the movers in this scheme in any event will make some money,
No matter what the result, final settlement will be delayed as the money in Piening's hands will now be tied up until the courts settle the question of ownership. There is not much doubt in the minds of those who have examined the matter that no such injustice as that contemplated will succeed.
