Show I I BUNTING CASE DECIDED r Victory for Bankers Heirs and Personal Creditors 1 AMOUNT INVOLVED S 50000 3 Suit Was Brought by Receiver of Bunting Co Bankers to He r cover Proceeds of Insurance Policy l for Bank Creditors Judge Hilcs Pound for Receiver But Majority 1 I of Supreme Court Holds Bank Was Only Entitled to 53610 Justice I Bartch Dissents I H II I y Each of the three Justices of the Su S yesterday handed down premo court lamlfHi cown a separate opinion in the case oC C E n of C Biyitlrfg ct Co vs Thum receiver o Wolstonholme appellant JUt I Daniel l apllelunL S tlccs Miner and Raskin concurred in I Iner the Judgment of the result reversing 3 Judge lilies before whom the cas jwns I Barlch dissents Chief Justice tried while Justce whie holding that the trial court sents Eent hohUng affirmed The action 3 should have ben afrmed 3cton fund of S500W I was brought to recover a S5Ol alleged to b held by the defendant ami l Ile o I to have been acquired by him as trustee Co bankers lie 1 of C Bunting derived from alleged was fund It was alcged J the proceeds I of a life Insurance policy the life of Charles Bunting issued f on lre untnr I the 550000 payable on deceased for S500 his estate death of Bunting I PLAINTIFF PLEADED A TRUST The ground for the action to leoover Ion I-on behalf of the creditors of Burning I Co was that the sum of SJ110 of the i money of C Bunting Co bankers I of which the plaintiff is the receiver was used by Bunting in the payment the policy prior to of the premiums on Jolc in that a trust resulted his death and a rcsulel bank and its receiver to favor of the 1eceler the extent of the entire sum of 50000 the policy It was also derived from p I lc alleged and not denied that the policy nle the defendant In August was assigned to dcfeulwt aSRIJed sent gust 1806 and that the company the usual notice for payment of the 11 notce also premium to the defendant I was alleged and admitted that the assign mentwas made without Any conxldeia tlon Bunting had no funds of his own nnd moreover the bank waa Insolvent during a large portion of the three 2 years which the policy ran prior to the appointment of the receiver In May 1897 the Insurance company paid the defendant the full amount of Upon the hearing in the the policy llealng court below It was decreed that tho fund received by the defendant was with trust on behalf of the impressed wih a bank < and the defendant was ordered 10 lanl 50000 turn over to the plaintiff the p bank lor the benefit of the creditors of the bankJUSTICE MINERS OPINION Justice Miner Ih his opinion says The respondent Insists tbat the 1 0 000 derived from the Insurance poluv which was payable to Buntings heirs rep waq rescntallves and assigns should If impressed im-pressed with a trust because SnllO of the funds ot the bank were used to pay the premiums HI demands thai a ourl of equity shall allow the bank a return of the money invested SollO and C I onl I t i hI 1nt YElP ti uso ot511OfortheUmOfla1flCd IIOVU UO It juot VM i > If the l I trnst cieated were a constructive trust and the payments were made of trust I money at the time Bunting acquired the policy this contention would seem more In accordane with the holding o many courts Brft in this case where the fund sought to be impressed with a Is grossly disproportionate to trust so dlsprOltonuc I rrossly the amount of the trust fun1 alleged to have been used the application of the rule Is Inequitable and courts of equity are not required to do Injustice nor should such a doctrine be invoked under a state of facts like those under consideration In this case NO CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST In the case at bar neither the insurance insur-ance policy nor the proceeds thereof were fver Impressed with 1 constructive construc-tive trust The policy having been payable to Buntings heirs the fund necessarily belongs to the estate and becomes liable for the paymentAf Buntings debts and all his creditors fund accoVd will share notably in the acco wi to the amount of their respective claims But if the fund is impressed with a trust then only the creditors of the Bunting bank to the exclusion of Othr I creditors would obtain the sum of SHSDO over and above the amount Invested by Bunting from trust funds ns a reward for his misappropriation of the funds of the bank To permit ouch C disposition of the fund would to my mind not only be an Injustice to tho ho Ira and creditors of Bunting but would be an example against which the conscience of f court of equity would revolt Th opinion then orders that out of thf t 50000 the appellant pay the r t rvc S3G10 the amount of the premiums pre-miums it was proven wore paid from funds of the bank and that the appellant appel-lant retain tho balance Justice Bask In concurring with Justice Miner holds that Bunting was the absolute owner of the policy and that his estate Is entitled to the fund hess 1 the 3010 premiums paid from the funds of the bank JUSTICE BARTCtl DISSENTS Chief Justice Bartch In his dissenting opinion holds that both C Bunting iii bankers and C Bunting were In iyolviMit during the life of tho policy awl ff > r l long lime prior to the taking j out of the policy and the premiums were really paid with money belonging to depositors of the bank who wore misled us to the condition of the bank abs that the deposits were trust funds in the hands ot the bank and all Its I assets were so Impressed with a trust fIr the benefit of the creditors that thy could not rightly bo appropriated S for any purpose foreign to the legitimate legiti-mate business of the corporation Jus tk JJnrlch also holds that as the second sec-ond and third premlunm wore paid from tle funds of the bunk which wii8 S ffmte 1 tlUst the proceed therefrom should I in I icfrard as a part of the fund not xlthstaiuUiig the assignment which wn mnde to one who Is I not an Imo f ent purchaser for value having paid nothing for it and who It seemed has no personal Interest In It |