Curtis v. Connly v. 16 17, 1921
Decision Date | 12 December 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 69,69 |
Citation | 66 L.Ed. 222,42 S.Ct. 100,257 U.S. 260 |
Parties | CURTIS v. CONNLY et al. Argued Nov. 16-17, 1921 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Edward F. McClennen, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Messrs. Wm. W. Moss. Arthur M. Allen, and Eugene A. Kingman, all of Providence, R. I., for appellees.
This is a bill brought by a receiver of a national bank to recover from former directors of the bank for losses sustained by it because of dividends paid out of capital and improper loans and investments made by the defendants. The bill states with particularity the dates at which each defendant began and ceased to serve, and thus discloses that six of those named left office more than six years before August 2, 1916, when this suit was begun. On motion the bill was dismissed by the District Court as against these six on the ground that the statute of limitations of the State of Rhode Island was a bar. 259 Fed. 961, sub nom. Curtis v. Metcalf. The decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 264 Fed. 650. The receiver appeals, contending that the bill states facts sufficient to suspend the running of the statute until within six years from the beginning of the suit.
There is no dispute that the statute of Rhode Island governs the case. McClaine v. Rankin, 197 U. S. 154, 25 Sup. Ct. 410, 49 L. Ed. 702, 3 Ann. Cas. 500. The only question argued is whether the bill brings the defendants within the exception to the general rule, in Gen. Laws 1969, c. 284, § 7:
'If any person, liable to an action by another shall fraudulently, by actual misrepresentation, conceal from him the existence of the cause of such action, said cause of action shall be deemed to accrue against the person so liable therefor, at the time when the person entitled to sue thereon shall first discover its existence.'
The misrepresentations charged are having the books and financial statements of the bank so kept and made as to show at their face value loans and investments known to be improper or worthless and thus to conceal the impairment of the capital fof the bank. These books were exhibited to the examiners and reports thus falsely made were filed with the Comptroller of the Currency and published, and none of the facts was discovered by any other than the directors before 1913, and many of them not until the latter part of 1915. The overstatement of assets is alleged to have grown from $50,000 in 1906 to $700,000 in 1913, when the bank was found to be insolvent and was put into the hands of a receiver. It is laid at $150,000 on January 12, 1909, when three of the appellees ceased to be directors; and when the other three left on January 11, 1910, at probably more than $200,000. The bank was then still solvent. The appellant says that these facts bring the case within the above section 7, and that no discovery of them appears until after August 3, 1910, that is, until within six years of this suit.
This suit is brought upon the common law right of the bank to recover for acts that diminished its assets. Therefore the question is whether the bank's claim is barred. The bank of course must be charged with knowledge of what appeared upon its books. It owned them; its stockholders had a right to inspect them. Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U. S. 148, 26 Sup. Ct. 4, 50 L. Ed. 130, 4 Ann. Cas. 466. Hence it would seem, as suggested by the District Judge, that so far as concerns investments of a kind that national banks are not allowed to make, the bank was chargeable with knowledge from the beginning and can found no claim upon them now. The parties to whom loans were made and the specific character of the assets must also have been known at all times, so that the only misrepresentations were those concerning the credit of the debtors implied by entering the claims at their face value in the books and reports. It is said that these were continuing representations, and no doubt the documents still read as they did when written. Whether they can be regarded as looking to an indefinite future reliance upon them or can be taken to have been relied upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Merchants' & Marine Bank of Pascagoula
... ... 64 L.Ed. 141, 152; Gamble v. Brown, 29 F.2d 366, ... 375; Curtis v. Metcalf, 265 F. 293 ... Renewal ... of a loan is not a ... 222, 226; Boyd v ... Applewhite, 121 Miss. 900, 84 So. 16; Martin v ... Webb, 110 U.S. 7, 28 L.Ed. 49; fails v. Gates Merct ... ...
-
Overfield v. Pennroad Corporation
...94 F. 582 (suit by receiver); Anderson v. Gailey, D.C.N.D.Ga.1929, 33 F.2d 589 (suit by receiver); see also, Curtis v. Connly, 1921, 257 U.S. 260, 42 S.Ct. 100, 66 L.Ed. 222 (suit by receiver). These actions, although brought at the instance of receivers, were equitable actions seeking reco......
-
Republic of China v. American Express Co.
...Bankers Trust Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 251 F. 789, 797; Curtis v. Connly, 1 Cir., 264 F. 650, 651, affirmed 257 U.S. 260, 42 S.Ct. 100, 66 L.Ed. 222; Rector v. U. S., 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 845, 860-861; Thompson v. Murphy, 8 Cir., 93 F.2d 38, 40; Siegmund v. General Commodities C......
-
York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...Kimmel, 99 U.S. 201, 25 L.Ed. 431; See also Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U.S. 377, 7 S.Ct. 610, 30 L.Ed. 718; Curtis, Receiver, v. Connly, 257 U.S. 260, 261, 42 S.Ct. 100, 66 L. Ed. 222. 48a In Roos v. Texas Co., 5 Cir., 126 F.2d 767, there was no showing of plaintiff's "ignorance of his rights ......
-
Defining the boundaries of the adverse domination doctrine: is there any repose for corporate directors?
...favor of the directors of a bank who have the control and management of its affairs while they remain in control."); cf. Curtis v. Connly, 257 U.S. 260, 263-64 (1921) (conferring knowledge of director wrongdoing to a bank when three new directors were placed on board). (3) See Schilling, 35......
-
W. Marion Wilson, Trust Me, I'm a Lawyer: Restoring Faith in Fiduciaries by Dumping "due Diligence" and Tolling the Statute of Limitations for Postpetition Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Chapter 11
...(Ga. Ct. App. 1999). 159 See Urland v. Merrell-Dow Pharms. Inc., 822 F.2d 1268, 1273 (3d Cir. 1987). 160 See, e.g., Curtis v. Connly, 257 U.S. 260, 264 (1921). 161 See id. at 260. 162 See 32 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 3D Proving Fraudulent Concealment to Toll Statutory Limitations Period Sec. ......