190 Iowa 1020 | Iowa | 1921
It is further shown that all of the assets of said bank were converted by the receiver, as far as possible, into cash; that he realized therefrom the sum of $317.56; and that the other assets remaining in his hands were worthless and uncollectible.
On March 9, 1917, the receiver filed his petition in equity in this case, and the trial court was asked to adjudge and decree that the Buffalo Center State Bank is insolvent; that the claimants above named are the creditors of said bank in the amounts stated; that these liabilities accrued while the defendants were stockholders of said bank; that the defendants are severally liable for such debts proportionate to the amount of their several shares of capital stock set out in the petition; that an assessment of 100 per cent be made against each of said defendants, proportionate to his holdings of the capital stock; and that judgment be entered ag’ainst each of them for the amount of such assessment.
Each of the defendants filed a separate answer. No purpose will be served in setting out in extenso the defensive matters pleaded. Defendant Kelley, inter alia, pleaded the insolvency of the bank and the statute of limitations. The defendant Des Moines Savings Bank, inter alia, pleaded that, on the 1st of August, 1908, the said bank discontinued doing a banking business and went into voluntary liquidation, transferring its building, banking business, deposits, and bills receivable to the Buffalo Center Savings Bank; that, under the laws of the state of Iowa, the defendant Des Moines Savings Bank never had power or authority to contract any indebtedness, except as by statute permitted; and that no liability was created on its collateral holding of 248 shares of stock of the Buffalo Center State Bank; that the Buffalo Center State Bank had no power or authority, and was by the statute of the state expressly forbidden to incur any indebtedness or liability, except for necessary expenses in managing and transacting its business for depositors and to pay deposits, save that, in pursuance to an order of its board of directors, previously adopted, it might incur other liability not in excess of an amount equal to its capital stock; that none of the indebtedness referred to in plaintiff-receiver 7s petition was in
The Forest City National Bank pleaded, inter alia, that, under the laws of the United States governing it as a national bank, it never had any power or authority to own or hold stock in a state bank or other corporation; that its powers were conferred upon it by Section 5136 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; that the Buffalo Center State Bank had no power or authority to create the indebtedness to which the claims filed with the receiver relate, nor was such indebtedness incurred in pursuance of an order of its board of directors previously adopted, as required by statute; that more than five years has elapsed prior to the commencement of this suit and the insolvency and voluntary liquidation of the defendant bank.
On the material issues thus joined, trial was had, and the court made the following findings, and so decreed: (1) That the defendants are and were the owners and holders of shares of stock in the Buffalo Center State Bank of the par value as follows: Des Moines Savings Bank, $6,200; G. S. Gilbertson, $17,700; P. H. Harrington, $5,800; Cathryn M. Harrington, $200; K. K. Kellerud, $5,500; C. H. Kelley, $12,600; Forest City National Bank, $2,000. (2) That the Forest City National Bank was the real owner of said stock, although the certificates stand on the books of the corporation in equal shares in the name of C. A. Isaacs and B. H. Thomas, respectively. (3) That the creditors’ claims filed with and allowed by the receiver against said bank are and are declared to be invalid, and not lawful claims. (4) That the petition of F. D. Peet, receiver, is dismissed at his costs as such receiver.
The primary question presented by this appeal is: Are the stockholders of the Buffalo Center State Bank subject to assessment for the payment of the claims of the State National Bank, G. S. Gilbertson, and C. H. Kelley against said bank?
I. This action is based on Section 1882 of the Code, which provides:
“All stockholders of savings and state banks shall be indi
It is affirmed by appellant, and denied by appellees, that the indebtedness of the Buffalo Center State Bank, for the payment of which assessment is sought to be made, is an indebtedness contemplated by the statute, for which the defendant stockholders are liable. Appellant’s proposition is predicated on the provisions of Section 1855-a of the Supplement to the Code, 1913, which reads:
“State and savings banks may contract indebtedness or liability for the following purposes only: for necessary expenses in managing and transacting their business, for deposits, and to pay depositors; provided, that in pursuance to an order of the board of directors previously adopted, other liabilities not in excess of amount equal to the capital stock may be incurred. ’ ’
In the correct decision of the point in controversy, certain questions finding answers in the record of this case must be taken into consideration. When was this indebtedness created ? For what purpose was it created? What authority existed and in whom to create it? These matters are of the essence of the contracts on which the creditor claimants seek to impose liability on the' defendant stockholders.
It is conceded that the primary question relates to the authority to create the indebtedness to which the creditors’ claims refer. After August 1, 1908, the Buffalo Center State Bank did not occupy a banking house or banking room or per
“Whereas, it being the sense of the meeting that the bank should discontinue doing a banking business, and as soon as possible liquidate its affairs, on motion duly made and carried, the stockholders, by unanimous vote, adopted the following resolution : ‘Resolved that the board of directors of this bank be and are hereby authorized and empowered to sell, convey, and transfer to any person, persons, company, or corporation desiring to purchase same, any part or all of the assets of this bank, except the books and papers of the corporation, on such terms and at such price as they may deem advisable, and to perform any other acts in this connection which, in their judgment, are necessary to conserve the best interests of the bank. The proceeds of such sale or sales shall be used to pay the running expenses of the bank, protect its property, and reduce its liabilities. Such sales of assets and paying of obligations shall proceed until all assets of the bank have been sold and all its liabilities have been paid, at which time the directors are authorized to dissolve this corporation as provided by law.’ ”
Acting under this authority, the bank sold all of its physical assets, including the bank building. A resolution in conformity to the powers granted by the stockholders was adopted August 3, 1908, by the board of directors, in which certain agreements for the sale of real estate and of personal property, including furniture and fixtures owned by the bank, were approved. The resolution then recited:
“And be it further resolved that the president and cashier of this bank be and are hereby authorized and empowered to sell, convey, and transfer to any person, persons, company, or corporation desiring to purchase same, any part or all of the remaining assets of the bank, except the books and papers of the corporation, at such price and on such terms as they deem ad
No other or different resolutions were ever adopted, nor were further meetings of the directors ever held.
Under these resolutions, did the officers of the said bank have power and authority to contract the indebtedness on the dates alleged and for the purposes claimed? The bank itself was in process of liquidation, and the resolutions are predicated upon this thought, and none other.
Recognizing that the bank was insolvent, and that it could no longer perform the functions of a bank, it is apparent that the thought uppermost in the minds of all was to sell the assets of the bank at such price as was deemed advisable. All “other acts in this connection” relate to the disposition of the assets of the defunct bank. No other construction is reasonable, and surely the stockholders did not intend to give an indefinite authority to the directors, nor did the directors themselves at that time intend that the authority given should be held in abéyance, and that, after many years, money should be borrowed for purposes disclosed by this record. The directors’ resolution cannot be construed to create greater authority than was intended by the stockholders’ resolution.- Contracts, debts, and obligations of a state bank are restricted by legal limitations to such debts and obligations as are contracted in the ordinary course of its banking business, and the individual liability of the stockholders, as defined by statute, must be so construed. It cannot be said that the indebtedness of the Buffalo Center State Bank, for the payment of which it is sought to make the stockholders liable, arises by implication in the process of liquidation; and, unless the authority to create such indebtedness was expressly created by the shareholders or directors, it does not exist. The plain intent of the resolution and the duty imposed thereby were to sell the assets of the bank and to pay the creditors pro
If the contracts creating the indebtedness are within the prohibition of the statute, then no liability attaches for which an assessment against the stockholders can be made. It would be inequitable to subject the property of stockholders to risks which they have never undertaken or authorized. Obligations for which they are liable must be such as are ordinarily incident to the banking business. Liquidation and the incidents thereof are not within the purview of the ordinary course of banking business. Schrader v. Manufacturers’ Nat. Bank, 133 U. S. 67 (33 L. Ed. 564); Kiggins v. Munday, 19 Wash. 233 (52 Pac. 855).
In the instant case, the claimant creditors were acquainted with the bank’s insolvency and its financial relations; knew that the bank had ceased to perform its ordinary functions; knew that it was in process of liquidation; and two of the creditors were stockholders and officers of said bank. That we may more fully understand the situation, we will analyze the claims of the creditors separately.
II. The State National Bank claims to have loaned $6,000 to the Buffalo Center State Bank on April 14, 1910, which loan was renewed September 3, 1913. Both notes were signed “G. S. Gilbertson, Trustee for Buffalo Center State Bank. ’ ’ Gilbertson was not the trustee for the Buffalo Center State Bank, nor did he have authority to execute commercial paper for the bank, as trustee. Gilbertson at said time was a director and stockholder of the Buffalo Center State Bank, and also its president, by virtue of his election on January 13, 1908. He. was also a director and stockholder of the State National Bank, from 1905 to 1911. B. H. Thomas was a director and stockholder of the State National Bank, and its vice-president. He was also a director of the Buffalo Center State Bank, by virtue of his election in January, 1908, and was its cashier by appointment. It is clearly shown that these officers were fully cognizant of the financial status of the defunct bank at the time in question, and this fact
“I had to do with the transaction at the time this $6,000 was borrowed from the State National Bank of Iowa Falls for the business of the Buffalo Center State Bank. That money was borrowed to wind up the affairs and business of the Buffalo Center State Bank, and was used for that purpose.”
He further testifies in relation to the time certificates outstanding August 1, 1908:
“The time certificates were very largely certificates issued for loans that had been made to the Buffalo Center State Bank, —-the majority of them were, — a very large portion; but I would not say that they were all that.”
Shortly after the time the Buffalo Center State Bank ceased to function as a bank (August 1, 1908), the Buffalo Center Savings Bank assumed the payment of all checking accounts of depositors, and also a considerable portion of all of the time certificates. Cashier Thomas, who handled practically all of the bank’s business relative to liquidation, was not able to name or number a time certificate under the care of the Buffalo Center State Bank during the period of liquidation that was not issued for a loan to the bank. Why the $6,000 was borrowed or how it was expended finds very vague answers in this record; and, in the opinion of the writer, they fail to meet the requirements of the statute defining the limitations of a state bank in contracting indebtedness.
G. S. Gilbertson claims that the Buffalo Center State Bank, became indebted to him for certain moneys he advanced to take up a mortgage on some Minnesota land, and to pay interest, and for salary during the period of the bank’s liquidation.
The salary item was not allowed by the receiver, but otherwise the claim was approved by him. It will be observed that the Gilbertson indebtedness was created after the Buffalo Center State Bank ceased to legally exist, since its charter rights expired by statutory limitation in January, 1914.
The Northwestern Land & Colonization Company was a corporation organized by Mr. Gilb'ertson, in which he was the largest owner of the stock. Beceiver Peet testified:
“I find no record that Gilbertson took over any land at that time. None of the Norman County land came to me as receiver. It had all been disposed of prior to my appointment.”
Gilbertson had been a director and an officer of the Center State Bank from its organization, and was present and participated in the meeting of August 1, 1908, when the resolution for liquidation and dissolution was passed by the stockholders. Very little appears in the record explanatory of the Gilbertson claim, other than that which appears on the face thereof. Is it a claim for which a stockholder’s liability attaches? We think not.
In Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27, 60, it is said:
‘1 The individual liability of the stockholders, as imposed by and expressed in the statute, is indeed for all the contracts, debts, and engagements of such association; but that must be restricted in its meaning to such contracts, debts, and engagements as have been duly contracted in the ordinary course of its business. That business ceased when the bank went into liquidation; after that there was no authority on the part of the officers of the bank to transact any business in the name of the bank so as to bind its shareholders, except that which is implied in the duty of liquidation, unless such authority had been expressly conferred by the shareholders. No such express
The claim of C. H. Kelley, as allowed by the receiver, finds its basis on a promissory note of $8,000, dated July 9, 1913, signed by “G. S. Gilbertson, trustee for Buffalo Center State Bank,” and on an open account in the sum of $5,112. The record, as has been indicated, is quite meager in explanation of the nature of- the transactions giving rise to said claims. The account in evidence shows:
“Dec. 5, 1913, by cash $1,332; Nov. 20, 1914, paid Iowa National Bank acct. $5,000 note, $1,250; Nov. 30, 1914, amt. advanced to take up mortgages on Norman County land, $10,300.”
This appears on the credit side of the ledger in C. H. Kelley’s account, and is offset on the debit side by two items relative to Minnesota land mortgages, totaling $7,800.
It is disclosed that the Buffalo Center State Bank had been indebted for a number of years to the Des Moines Savings Bank, appellee, in the sum of $5,000, which debt had been guaranteed by Gilbertson, Kelley, and Harrington. Suit was instituted on this claim in 1914 by the Savings Bank, and in April, 1915, the claim was compromised and adjusted by the payment of $1,250 by Gilbertson, and by the payment of a like amount by Kelley. These items are included in the claims filed by Gilbertson and' Kelley. It is also true that a considerable part of the indebtedness claimed by creditor Kelley had its origin after January, 1914, when the charter of the Buffalo Center State Bank expired. Furthermore, Gilbertson, as has been stated, was not the trustee of the insolvent bank, nor was express authority ever given him, as trustee or otherwise, to execute the note in question. The resolution adopted was not sufficient, for the reasons heretofore given.
Other points are presented both by appellant and appellees in briefs and argument; but, in view of our holding on the con