Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
DERS. THE FOR BAD STOCKH A a Decision By Judge Ross About San Diego Bank. a in About A Trouble Young Young Man Woman's Letter. Various Proceedings Yesterday Notes of in Cases the on Courts Trial New Suits Filed, Etc. in morning Judge court, Ross, handed Yesterday States circuit a demurrer the United opinion overruling of San Diego in down the an case California of the National county ruling bank, in the which matvs. is a the very controversy, important and of as the a result defunct funds of ter in the stockholder ittle very of the was which will receive of the receiver. in the bank now in the hands originally brought Diego county inThe suit court bank, of San which and became against it was against superior November the 11, 1891, on whose circuit mosolvent F.N. Pauly, the transferred receiver, to the 15, August tion court. county charges C. that funds R. Daner, in the deThe its treasurer, county deposits ag 1891, posited and $5975.70 other similar made and bill certifi- also H. of deposit Tax in the cates alleges bank, gregating that deposited $10,000 County issused. were $6114.85 Collector other The deposits bank the W. of which Weineke November 2, $20,000 1891. and additional certificates of aggreaggregating money, for and moneys certificounty's were for which no bill aldeposit issued 75, The were gating $24,532 by bimentioned and cates that leges that were keeping, the taken moneys and also were alleged public was and the trust funds. 27 has sufficient the only for eafe $2453 It received been repaid, to repay gums that are receiver his Appointment The alleges to pay the the since amounts in not full. su ufficient bank aggets in full, from and restrained of there indebtedness the receiver of the is funds indebtedness now in his of hands the bank, full. the money in applying unless to a the part county general will not receive its by urged demurrer, and a plain and the The the defendants, complainant remedy at law, has entitling that the that adequate no equities relief against the bill contains to any of them. clear defendants : eays either that a it cause is very of action and The if the court bill states equitable. D nature, alone. In that it is of an court did the the dein a not that at all enforcible present case have knowledge only in question offibank the moneys deposits time of that the officers the fendant depositors at the of and such the moneys were county, held by county, trust for with nocers 80 depositing deposited of the them were in chargeable the of the state the bank was that the law to of the for those such made but tice the it bank illegal fact to receive acquired officers as deposits. no against make title The or bank, thereford BO they continued to the truet in deposited the The d with the lost; impressed complainant moneys favor. with mingled and moneye identity complain- moneys court, were ant's no bank, doubt and their can such fact favor dea complainant's of but, the asks the trust in of being by inthe stroy the bank the or prevent the of equity? The was between creditors court question general receiver. solvent, complainant represented and the became by the such money volordinary eyes the and knowlThe with of untarily; the bank bank they creditors deposited with their their open. was to of But the the money by not its of officerwithout k only but contrary edge put with plane by the complainanthe complainant the to make law. the To same would be to which to it Qrdinary on creditors share in subject in a loss iteelf, money and the ehare in the prop not which erty of the bank. give did not to never the in latter equity This became would certainly BradJustice the equity be just. holds with does not Mr. destroy it into to a the converts mass, giving diverthe ley that entirely, the entire unlawful other cheparty charge the priority upon injured by right over The demur- defenbeing dants sion & of the overruled, in the which to rendered rer creditotherefore is allowed 20 days a decision W. of E. Savage answer. Ross also in the case suit in the to court. complaint of by Judge written VB. opinio Woreham, W. G. plaintiff dismissed, asked action its circuit the Amended that the cause stated is in that have the ground attempted t to different be from original on therein nasubetance out in the regarded nature and to be get cannot be The subattempted and, ted therefore,f the 40-acre bill. tract of bill, amendment endment is over a court granted out the government as ject an of the suit of land. plain The tiff to strike the amended motion complaint.
