Show ICREmTOR I Rn MUSI M 50 UEI f Supreme Court Reverses Park City i I Bank Cases I + j THE PROCEDURE NAMED I SUITS ORDERED DISMISSED AT COST OP RESPONDENT DecisionJHanded Down Yesterday By Judge Hart With Justice Baskin and Judge JdcCarfy Concurring Appellants Were Mrs Geneva Kimball and Gilbert D Gregor 4 i In the supreme court yesterday an opinion opin-ion was handed down by Judge Hart Justice Baskin and Judge McCarthy concurring con-curring In tjle suit of D C McLaughlin receiver of Park City bank vs Geneva KImball administratrix and same vs Gilbert Desiegor Both suits were tried together In the lower court and the same procedure was adopted In the upper the defendants taking the appeal Justice Bartch and Justice Miner having been employed in the suits were disqualified j i from passing on the cases and Judges Hart and McCarthy were called in The I judgment of the trial court is revised and instructions given to dismiss the suits at the cost of the receiver Pacts Brought Out The facts brought out in the first trial were that the property of the Park City bank was on June 12 1S93 assigned to Edwin Kimball for the benefit of the banks creditors Kimball was engaged in winding up the concerns affairs until his death Oct 10 1S93 Three days later Cornelius McLaughlin instituted an action In the Third district court alleg ing the insolvency of the bank and ask ing the appointment of a receiver He demanded a judgment for 20000 on a cer tificate of deposit On the same day D C McLaughlin was I appointed receiver Nov 1 1893 Cornelius I fJ InecjlJra 10t J l nC McLaughlm died and the action was revived re-vived in tho name of his executor Ka ward McLaughlm A judgment f as rca dered In his favor for 2155 TO Orv Aug 12 1894 Edward McLaughlin filed another complaint against the bank alleging that after exhausting all the assets or the bank there would still remain 75000 due to the creditors He claimed that under the state law he stockholders were liable for the full amount of stock held by them D C Mclaughlin was then appointed special receiver and as such instituted the actions against Mrs Kimball and Gregor The lower court found that the former had forty shares and the lattfer fifty shares and judgment was accordingly rendered for 4000 and 5000 respectively Creditors Must Sue The supreme court in deciding the cases I heldthat the special receiver had no right to bring the suits In the Interest of anyone any-one creditor Summing up the opinion says Unless the necessities of the occasion oc-casion require individuals and not the officers of the court should bear the responsibility re-sponsibility of litigating their own claims < If a receiver should be appointed in such a case where can the line be drawn I unless drawn by the statute If several I I creditors are entitled to a receiver to collect col-lect their dues from sev eral stockholders a receiver could be appointed in any other cause where several plaintiffs are seeking seek-ing recovery against several defeendants While I perhaps not so convenient a remedy rem-edy the EI otasso itn of complete relief In a creditors suit against the stockholders |