45 S.C. 216 | S.C. | 1895
Lead Opinion
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The contention in above causes involves one of the most curious set of facts among business men that we remember ever to have encountered. Briefly stated, these facts are: that in 1883, Levi Metz, while a citizen of Lexington County, in this State, being a man of sound discretion, though advanced in years, became so enamoured with the profits flowing from banking operations, that he actually embarks in a partnership, as private bankers, with a man, Mr. C. J. Iredell, without capital, and while Metz holds a large mortgage over the very roof that shelters Iredell and his family, simply upon his faith in Iredell’s capacity and character as a business man. This new relation is embodied in articles of copartnership, signed by the two men. As indicating the terms of this business venture, we repeat, with the articles of partnership before us, some of the main features thereof. Its purpose is to conduct a general private banking business in the city of
Dividends to July 1..................................$24,161 18
Dividends for two months, to September 1...... 900 00
Total.............................................$25,061 18
Net profits reserved.................................... 1,000 00
$26,061 18
Total to Devi Metz.....................$13,030 59
Interest on special fund............... 6,000 00
$19,030 59
Due Devi Metz on Sept. 1st, 1888, the capital.. $25,000 00 Special fund, $20,000; dep’t on book, $13,317.81 33,317 81
One-half net profits for two months............... 450 00
One-half reserve fund................................. 500 00
$59,267 81
Thus it will be seen that Mr. Metz, for the five years of the existence of the firm, received $13,980.59 as profits on his $25,000 capital, something more than eleven per cent, interest per annum thereon. Discussion then arose as to continuing the business. Metz expressed his readiness to do so, if Iredell would contribute one-half of the capital stock, $12,500. This Iredell explained he was unable to do. It was then agreed to proceed to wind up the business. On the 8th day of March, 1889, the liabilities and resources of the firm bank was stated by Iredell as follows:
ASSETS.
Cash..................................... ; 2,495 33
Doans................................... 105,834 68
Overdrafts............................. 41,872 42
Bills of exchange.................... 1,918 36
Property account..................... 4,359 99
*241 Rent account......................................... 989 83
Bond account.......................................... 15,150.75
Account of expenditures........................... 1,594 22
Bank of Hanover.................................... 453 09
Peoples’ Bank of Greenville....................... 1,435 23
Peoples’ Roan and Exchange Bank............... 651 52
First National Bank of Charleston............... 533 06
Commercial Bank, Cincinnati..................... 68 97
1177,356 95
EIABIEITIES.
Capital.................................................. $25,000 00
Special deposit....................................... 20,000 00
Deposits................................................ 96,497 35
Profits’ account....................................... 3,142 71
National Bank of the Republic................... 3,922 51
Carolina Savings Bank.............................. 14,907 72
Commercial Bank, Augusta, Ga.................. 567 91
Georgia Railroad and Banking Company...... 2,633 47
State Bank of Virginia.............................. 660 53
National Bank of Newberry....................... <8 99
Latham, Alexander & Co.......................... 3,397 56
Greenville Savings Bank........................... 418 20
Bills payable.......................................... 4,750 00
$177,356 95
Now think of this statement, and what it involves. Here is a private banking firm with nearly $100,000 due depositors, and the sum of $2,495.35 in cash to pay such depositors. It is true, that the loans are reported at over $105,000, and there are overdrafts for over $41,000. See the balances due other banks, for probably $25,000. Mark the significant item, “Bills payable, $4,750.” And yet this firm of general private bankers are talking a few months before- — ■ placidly, we may imagine — of stopping business and winding up their affairs. Metz afterwards said, “We ought to have shut down and made the fur fly.” It is not difficult
We will consider the 2d, 6th, and 8th exceptions together. It is true, the manager, Mr. Iredell, did write on the books of the partnership its closing of business at the end of the 8th day of March, 1889, and on the next day opened said books on behalf of the new bank. Still the assets of the old partnership bank were retained at the old stand, and the books that were not transferred to the new bank were
As to the 14th exception, relating as it does to the claim presented under a call for creditors against the partnership bank, we fail to find anything in the testimony that mitigates against the conclusion reached by the Circuit Judge. This exception is overruled.
As to the 16th exception, we fail to see that Mr. Iredell is indebted to Mr. Metz in the sum here claimed. We think
We will consider the 18th and 19th exceptions. When the decree of the Circuit Judge here assailed is considered carefully, it will be readily seen that the Circuit Judge is endeavoring to point out that, as to creditors, the partnership could not be dissolved by its members so as to destroy their right to pursue such partnership, and cause the assets to be available to the payment of their respective demands. It could not be claimed that such partnership had wound up its affairs so long as the claims of its creditors were unsettled. But, in addition to these matters, the Circuit Judge largely relied upon the testimony in the case clearly pointing to a different determination by the partners to this private banking copartnership. We are not disposed, under these views, to disturb these conclusions of the Circuit Judge.
As to the 20th exception, we think the appellant fails to grasp what the Circuit Judge did hold as to the liability of the new bank to answer fully in this action for all collaterals held by it derived from the partnership bank. Certainly they were required to account for these collaterals. The respondent claims that it has fully accounted therefor, and it seems the Circuit Judge concurred in such view. The testimony is wanting to deny validit}'' to such finding of fact. The proofs might have been more complete on this point. This exception is overruled.
As to the 22d and 23d exceptions, we may remark, that we have already agreed to the finding of fact, that Mr. Ire-dell, as manager, had authority from Mr. Metz, his partner, to create the obligation he did with the new bank, in furtherance of their joint duty to pay the money they owed other people who were creditors of the partnership bank. Uet these exceptions be overruled.
So far as the 24th exception is concerned, it may be said that Mr. Metz, in view of heavy liabilities that he was under to other people, and which liabilities were fully disclosed to him, seemed remarkably inactive. Even after the 1st of September, 1888, he did not seek to acquaint himself with the character of the assets of the partnership bank to pay such large debts. He certainly knew in March, 1889, of $4,500 of bills payable being issued by his partner. If cash was not on hand when demand was made by depositors, it had to be raised. There is a conflict in the testimony as to his knowledge of these overdrafts. Such a conflict of testimony has been solved against him, and as there is testimony to support such finding, under our well established rule, we will not interfere. This exception is overruled.
The next exception is the 27th. We find no evidence to sustain the view that the new bank was careless or grossly
The 28th exception is virtually disposed of by the views we have already announced, but we will say that the testimony does- not impress us, that Mr. Iredell, as manager, used the funds he derived from the new bank in any other way, to much extent, than in relieving the pressing demands made upon the partnership. How could this large deposit account of the partnership have been reduced to a few thousand dollars, except by the use of' the new bank’s money? It is admitted that Mr. Metz never added a dollar to the assets of the old firm after 8th Morch, 1889. On the contrary, he drew thousands of dollars therefrom for his own private use. Mr. Iredell was admittedly unable to help in this way to much of an extent. So practical common sense answers us, under the testimony, that these depositors and other creditors of the old bank were paid by the money of the new bank. Bet this exception be overruled.
The 29th exception refers to the absence, of any necessity, in view of the assets of the old bank and the private means of Mr. Metz, to borrow any money to pay the debts of the old banking partnership. There is no testimony as to the extent of Mr. Metz’s means. There is abundant testimony as to the insolvency of the partnership bank in September, 1888. Bet this exception be overruled.
The 30th exception. We do not doubt that Mr. Iredell, as manager, kept Mr. Metz as his partner profoundly ignorant of his wretched management of the partnership bank. All this occurred before the new bank was organized. The testimony is in the record as to the necessity of borrowing money being known by Mr. Metz. We are impressed, however, with the idea that this necessity of borrowing money
It remains now for us to dispose of the 7th and 10th exceptions. The 7th exception seems to complain that his Honor, the Circuit Judge, used incorrectly the words of “partnership at will of the old banking firm after 1st September, 1888.” Our view is, that if the partnership continued after that date, it matters little what name you apply to such a condition, and hence we decline to pursue that' inquiry as an abstraction.
As to the 10th exception, we may say, that while there does seem to have been some notice to depositors of the formation of the new bank, and that the old bank was attempting to close its business, yet we fail to see how this circumstance would operate to produce any effect of payment of depositors and other creditors of the old partnership bank. Until these debts were paid, this firm was an entity, and the entity that had to provide for their payment. We conceive that our previous remarks will cover this ground of appeal also.
We greatly regret that our time is too limited to enter as fully as we would like to do into the discussion of all these exceptions. We have thought much over this case, and our conclusions are the result of that reflection.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed in each of the two cases, which were heard together.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring. I concur in
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. ■ On the 16th day of July, 1883, Bevi Metz and C. J. Iredell entered into articles of partnership to do a banking business in Columbia, S. C., under the firm name of “The Commercial Bank,” to continue for five years from the 1st day of September, 1883. Metz was to put in $25,000, and Iredell guaranteed him from any loss in excess of this capital. Iredell was to devote his time to the business, and was to have the full management thereof. This partnership bank was opened for business on the 4th day of September, 1883. Previous to that time Metz had been a farmer and surveyor in Bexington County, S. C., and by his industry and thrift had accumulated a considerable fortune. Iredell for several years prior to said year had been, and at the time of the formation of the partnership was, the cashier of the Carolina National Bank of Columbia, S. C., and enjoyed the reputation of being a man of honesty, integrity, and business capacity. Metz was frequently in the bank, but left the entire business to Iredell, who managed it exclusively — signed the papers of the bank “C. J. Iredell, Manager.” The result of the first five years operation was complete insolvency, although Metz had every reason to believe, and did believe, that the business was pros
When we come to a consideration of the exceptions, we will then refer more specifically to the facts of the case, that touch upon the questions raised by the exceptions. A reference to the decree of his Honor, Judge Aldrich, will show the different steps which have been taken during the progress of this case. The appellant’s exceptions are thirty in number, and very lengthy. We will not consider them seriatim, but will endeavor to state our views upon all questions properly arising under them. The first question raised by the exceptions which we will consider is: Was the partnership bank dissolved in March, 1889? The Circuit Judge and master both have found that the partnership was not dissolved at that time. In reaching the conclusion at which we have arrived, we are not to be understood as intending in an}' manner to contravene the well established rule of this Court, that findings of fact by the master, in which the Circuit Judge has concurred, will not be reversed unless they are not supported by any testimony or are against the manifest weight of the evidence. We feel less hesitation in concluding that this finding by the master, in which the Circuit Judge has concurred, should be reversed, because we have reached our conclusions by drawing, in our opinion, the reasonable and correct inference from those facts which in the main are not disputed: 1. After the 1st of September, 1888 (the time when the partnership was to be discontinued, as set forth in the articles of partnership), there was no agreement that the partnership should continue its banking operations for a definite period of time. 2. Metz was not willing to renew the partnership unless Iredell would contribute $12,500 as his one-half of the capital stock, which Iredell could not do for the lack of means. 3. Iredell knew that the affairs of the old bank would have to be settled up
We will next consider the effect of the purchase by the defendant, in March, 1889, of the vault, furniture, sundry notes, &c., aggregating $43,294.29. It appears that this was a fair price for the property, and that every dollar of said amount was paid towards the extinguishment of the partnership indebtedness. Under these circumstances, even conceding that Iredell had no right to'sell such property, nevertheless the defendant bank became subrogated to the right of the partnership creditors, and have a right to set up this equity against the plaintiff’s claim. Bailey v. Bailey, 41 S. C., 337; Givins v. Carroll, 40 S. C., 413. The plaintiff’s demand growing out of the sale of said property cannot, therefore, be sustained.
We will now consider the effect of the assignment by Iredell of the property mentioned in “A,” on the 12th day of February, 1891, to wit: “Assets of partnership bank traced to defendant bank, held by bank as collateral. 1. Notes, as per Martin list, $7,603.62. 2. Gibson bond and mortgage
We will next consider so much of the decree as renders judgment against Metz and Iredell, as partners, in favor of the new bank. The- Circuit Judge finds that Levi Metz and C. J. Iredell, as partners, are indebted to the bank in the sum of $54,920.64, as per statement set out in his decree.
The appellant contends that it was error on the part of his Honor, the presiding Judge, to allow the claim of A. C. Alexander. The master, in his report, says: “The facts as to this claim are substantially these: A. C. Alexander had deposited with the defendant, Iredell, and obtained certificates of deposit two or three times in 1887 and 1888; these were subsequently paid. Afterwards, on the 17th of May, 1889, he went again and handed to the defendant, Iredell, a check for $500 and $150 in cash, and received from him a certificate, No. 118, in the usual form, signed ‘C. J. Iredell, manager of the Commercial Bank of Columbia.’ Subsequently on the 22d of July, 1890, he went back-, and to the face of the certificate and interest to that date he added $61.65 in money, and obtained the certificate No. 180 for $750,'■jin evidence as ‘G.’ * * * He did not recollect when the new bank began operation, and supposed that the old bank was in operation on the 17th»of May, 1889, and that he was dealing with it as before. When he obtained the last certificate he asked no questions, and seems to have had no definite idea as to what bank he was dealing with,” &c. The evidence shows that the transaction took place with the president of the new bank after the dissolution of the old bank. Under these circumstances, the defendant bank is liable to Alexander. If for any reason Alexander should not be able to collect his demand from the new bank, then the partnership bank would be compelled to make payment to him, as he did not have notice of the dissolution, although he had been a customer of the old bank.
The appellant complains of error on the part of the Circuit Judge in not holding that the corporators of the bank
The Circuit Judge has found that C. J. Iredell is indebted to Levi Metz in the sum of $48,112.75; the views herein-before expressed necessitate a restatement of the account between said partners.
There were two causes of action heard together by the master and Circuit Judge, and we will proceed to a consideration of the question raised by the exceptions under the second cause of action, being that of the Commercial Bank of Columbia, S. C., against Levi Metz. The facts are. as follows: In January, 1891, Metz, having no deposit in the defendant bank, drew three checks on this bank aggregating $5,700, which were paid and charged to him, creating an overdraft of $5,700. The overdraft was wiped out on the books of the bank by Iredell’s check for $2,600, on his overdrawn account, and by a deposit slip for $2,500, plus $600,. making $3,100, which Iredell made out in Metz’s name and put to Metz’s credit, and carried by the teller as “cash in hand,” until the 24th of January, when the whole $5,700— that is, the check of Iredell for $2,600 and the deposit slip for $3,100 — were changed back to Metz, who knew nothing of the credits on his account. Neither the check of Iredell nor the deposit slip ever yielded a cent to the bank. As the check was drawn on the new bank, and Metz received the money, or got the benefit thereof, we are satisfied, in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case, that the Circuit Judge was correct in rendering judgment against Metz for the amount stated in his decree.
For the foregoing reasons, we dissent from the judgment of the majority of the Court..