*1 blocks of the sale upon Washington Stock HARPER v. al.* such stock CRENSHAW et regard to little or no No. 6430. bank to the disadvantage and for Court of and depositors and its stockholders well as general banking for the thereupon munity; Oct. “joint adven- they into entered aforesaid writing, themselves, not in Jan. ture” between Decided capital stock sale for and Opinion Modify Denied Motion to agreed between bank; it was April 17, 1936. Rogers should them adventure, in whose the trustee carried; should be bank accounts all name buy and should Gockeler that the defendant such bank stock sell the terms as prices such and times and advisable; that each deem should should, each and the adventure did, treasury the sum pay into of them STEPHENS, GRONER and necessary to margins provide of $250 Justices, dissenting. stock; purchase of in the be raised should raise Gockeler necessary for such additional funds se- collateral chases, using stock as such therefor, for giving curity or maker or such pose note notes with indorsers, or makers, such indorser necessary; that Gockeler any, as should be purchases was to and sales making in such without with or own discretion exercise his parties to the with other conference appropriate at venture, Sullivan, Washington, William C. equal- time, thereto share C., for D. might be realized ly any profits which Gertman, Roger George C. White- J. sales, and to bear purchases and from such O’Bear, ford, Hugh Drury, P. Arthur H. thereby equally any losses which Wells, Moran, A. W. O’D. Coulter James sustained. Tobriner, Tobriner, Brez, Selig Leon C. That shares Minor, Benjamin II. Prescott Gat- S. purchased and sales were then bank C., appellees. for ley, Washington, all of D. time, purchases made from time Washing- being made and sales all ORSDEL, GRONER, purchases Exchange, and ton from time to time re- so made were sales ported Gockeler MARTIN, Chief Justice. fully and were discussed This taken an order and them; neces- approved became mo- sustaining of the lower court decree time to to raise funds sary from time complaint dismiss tion to the bill original so as contributions addition in that purchase price of provide the excess appellees as against the defendants. various stock; that on November alleges $17,600 In the bill the sum of borrowed Gockeler year plain- in substance that from the Commercial National C., Washington, tiff and the various named D. and this loan defendants fully approved by were discussed and the bill directors stockholders adventure; promis- National Bank they given sory signed were note was bank plaintiff, Harper, reasonable market Gockeler payment by avoiding the note secured stock of the *Writ of certiorari denied S. Ct. L. Ed. —. *2 Sá6 Thereby public of true market of stock value.- the collateral of 90 shares dealing also addi- would be misled with the Bank and when the District National in- by plaintiff arrangement designed stock. The the tional securities owned dividually; profit expense principal the of the part no to it at the that the paid, public. having purpose A of said note has ever been contract such a against public that the is en- payable; policy be is due and and cannot same now February equity. forced in Bank Commercial National 23, the placed hands al., In case of v. et the Scott Brown Comptroller of Cur- by the receiver the Q.B.(1892) an it was held that rency, and on March the agreement between two or more to National Bank was closed afterwards in- company chase shares in in order to receiver; that placed in hands of a the persons who thereafter duce part no 90 shares stock the believe, company chase shares by Bank owned District National facts, contrary there Na- held Commercial the shares, bona fide market security for the loan has tional Bank as premium, real is an the shares were at a sold, still held same is been receiver of the Commercial but the transaction, can be and no action Bank National respect agreement maintained in or loan, as also security for the as collateral of shares. by the owned are the additional securities (N. In Livermore v. Bushnell Hun plaintiff collateral to the and used as Y.) it is said that the will law receiver; note; of the Commer- that the party agreement aid either to enforce an upon demand Bank has made cial National advancing entered into for the $17,600, pay the note for plaintiff to selling price means of stocks upon to do so threatened failure has produce designed dealings fictitious false apply the plaintiff’s securities and to sell impression of observers on the minds liquidation of proceeds of the same to the value, concerning their and in real note; the defendants have refused money way to them to induce invest thereof, up- pay any part although called to on agreement in such stocks. Such an so to do. Wherefore against public policy. (Citing void any remedy plaintiff, being without' the law, authorities.) accounting of the prays for an busi- The decree of court is af- the lower joint ness and affairs firmed, with costs. receiver, appointment' of a also the Affirmed. joint necessary, required join with the adventure (dissent-
plaintiff $17,600 payment of the note for ing). general relief. and for I think the decree should be reversed in the lower various defendants The and the case remanded for trial on the separate to dismiss the motions court merits. bill, of both form and alleging defects The substance therein. court sustained agreement opinion I am with the upon ground agree- that, motions if the court contract sued on is joint public adven- against policy, may ment the court relief, contrary though in the bill was even grant pari trial, ture set out public policy are in if, and void. The I think delicto. And also on a bill, upon present it should dismissed agreement followed. fictitious public order to market in purchase induce the opinion the decision of In our the lower price shares bank at a joint correct. The adventure court was value, higher than their real the agree- appellant’s the basis of which forms claim against public pol- void ment would be icy. object fixing of a had as its I do But not think the bill states price Washington Exchange on the such a case. shares of stock in the Bank, charges National and to processes free that certain directors and of the stock ex- bank “were uncontrolled stockholders of quoted whereby the stock change a reasonable market price reflecting judgment the real Na- stock buyers sellers thereof as to its tional D. C. of -a inevitable avoiding the the said or blocks large block Washington Stock being sold regard for no with little or *3 disadvantage of and stockholders, well general depositors and borrowers banking and other par- plan, the carry To out this munity.” number appointed ties one “buy sell the said stock times, upon such prices, and at such he should conditions as terms and
advisable.” the bill that apparent price of the depress the purpose was bidding, competitive toas stock so does not and it and thus vance the market, rumors or either false way. If other competition, suppress agreement was not price of the improperly nor to advance market, but stock, nor to a false create against market supporting the confined to conditions; e., dumping of i. unusual which one time large blocks of stock sustain, and normally could market protec- wholly for the rights the stockholders tion of the Robert I. Sil- Mark P. Friedlander and consistently depositors, and this verman, both con- alleged, the rights public, as is not, illegal; my opinion, tract was Palkin, C., for Washington, D. Dora holds. find no which so I can case appellee. opin- joins STEPHENS ORSDEL,
ion. ROBB, Associate Justice. Supreme Appeal from a decree in dismissing peti- the District Court (plaintiff) to annul his tion of appellee (defendant). marriage to ATKINSON. ATKINSON v. peti- According to the averments tion, Keyser on defendant John 6489. No. May 29, were married in thereafter, May Court until of Columbia District of husband resided 15, 1916, May Keyser On de- wife. Dec. defendant, moving into the state serted where, years Maryland, about eleven Decided Feb. thereafter, instituted June divorce on the suit for in that state a without cause ground that him. In that abandoned and deserted had Keyser alleged that suit continuously resident of the and had been Columbia, therefore