Andrew v. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank, Washington
Decision Date | 13 March 1928 |
Docket Number | 38179 |
Citation | 218 N.W. 520,205 Iowa 712 |
Parties | L. A. ANDREW, State Superintendent of Banking, Appellee, v. FARMERS & MERCHANTS STATE BANK, WASHINGTON, et al., Appellants |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Washington District Court.--C. H. KELLEY, Judge.
The Farmers & Merchants State Bank closed April 28, 1924, and went into the hands of a receiver. Before that date, namely December 27, 1922, the directors of the bank had, after examination, and at the instance of the examiner, executed a guaranty, by which they guaranteed payment, on or before three years from date, of bills receivable listed in schedule attached, and renewals thereof. After the receiver took charge, a settlement with the directors on their guaranty was negotiated, by which they were to pay $ 36,000. The district court ex parte, on December 2, 1924, entered an order approving the settlement. On February 14, 1925, three depositors, Neill, Moore, and Brammer, filed an application to set aside the order approving the settlement, and to require the receiver to sue the directors. Applicants stated that they sued for themselves and for other depositors similarly situated. Their attorneys at the trial entered their appearance also for Appelgate and Horack. The court refused to set aside the settlement, but, on the contrary entered an order approving it. The applicants appeal.
Affirmed.
Havner Flick & Powers and Ray Yenter, for appellants.
Ben J. Gibson, Attorney-general, E. D. Morrison, Schuyler Livingston, and Clark & Byers, for appellees.
MORLING, J. EVANS, DE GRAFF, ALBERT, and KINDIG, JJ., concur. WAGNER, J., not participating.
The principal question argued is whether the settlement is in the interest of the depositors. The receiver, while filing a general denial, and setting up his reasons for the settlement, further in answer asked:
"If there is any just, valid, or legal reason for holding that the same is not a good settlement, and not for the best interests of the depositors, that then the court make such orders in the premises as will restore it status quo."
On the face of the guaranty, the directors apparently guaranteed payment of bills receivable amounting in the total to $ 394,775.63, of which $ 270,984.26 is classified as doubtful. The amount now claimed on the guaranty is $ 256,943.33. Before the bank closed, the directors had deposited their notes for upwards of $ 81,000, for the purpose of carrying through a merger with another bank, and had agreed to a stock assessment. They appear to have property subject to execution approaching in value the amount of the guaranty. The settlement made and approved was for $ 36,000. Over against this startling contrast are the facts that the application is made by only five depositors. The total number of depositors and the total amount of deposits do not appear, further than that, at a depositors' meeting, 200 to 250 are said to have been present, and the receiver asserts in argument (apparently with the acquiescence of applicants) that the total amount of deposits is $ 470,000. The deposits of the five applicants are $ 10,720.79. The settlement was approved by the five members of the depositors' committee (acting in this respect, however, individually, but apparently with the acquiescence of all depositors except applicants). It was approved by the examiner in charge, by the banking department, by the attorney-general, and by the court ex parte. Judge Kelley, of the twelfth district, was specially assigned to hear the present application, and after a trial, announced not only his concurrence in the ex-parte order, but also affirmatively his conclusion that it was for the best interest of all concerned that the settlement be allowed to stand.
Applicants complain that the trial court did not pass upon the validity of the guaranty. At the time of the settlement, the directors claimed that the guaranty was without consideration. The settlement was approved December 2, 1924. The order of confirmation entered on the trial of this proceeding was made December 4, 1926. Our opinion in In re Estate of Prunty, 201 Iowa 670, 207 N.W. 785, handed down March 16, 1926, determining that in such a case there is a sufficient consideration, seems not to have come to the notice of the parties or the trial court. That case has recently been followed in Hills Sav. Bank v. Hirt, 204 Iowa 940, 216 N.W. 281. Under the rule of those cases, there was a sufficient consideration for the guaranty; but the question was an open one when the settlement was made. Though the guaranty is valid for such liability as can be proved to come within its terms, the question remains whether the settlement made upon it is in the interest of the depositors. The validity of the covenant of the guaranty on its face is but one factor. Abstractly, it may be valid and actionable. Concretely, the question still is, What amount of recovery upon it, if any, is warranted by the facts?
The guaranty is dated December 27, 1922. It recites an examination of the bank, from which the superintendent of banking and examiners had expressed the In terms, the directors "severally hereby guarantee payment on or before three years from this date of each and every said bills receivable or any renewals of the same, and hereby waive notice of the acceptance of this guaranty and agree that this guaranty shall continue in full force and effect until the bills receivable or renewals thereof have been fully converted into cash." Exhibit A of the guaranty is made in three columns: the first headed "Name of Borrower," the second, "Total Amount in Bank," and third, "Amount Doubtful." There are some 42 borrowers listed, the amounts against them ranging from $ 75 up to $ 35,723.52. Most of them are large amounts. As illustrations, we may take the following items opposite the names of different borrowers: One item shows total amount in bank $ 3,500; amount doubtful, $ 2,000. Another item shows the total amount in bank $ 6,037.80, amount doubtful, $ 6,037.80; another, total amount in bank $ 22,929.42, amount doubtful, $ 12,000; another, total amount in bank $ 35,723.52, amount doubtful, $ 35,723.52. Some 22 of the items have the same amount in both columns. That is, the amount doubtful is the same as the total amount in the bank. These aggregate some $ 175,000. The footing of the items in the column headed "total amount in bank" is $ 394,775.63. The footing of the doubtful column is $ 270,984.26. An appendix to the agreement, added before signing, provides:
A question which to the court seems quite determinative receives but little attention from appellants in argument. That is, in applying the guaranty to the bills receivable of the bank, upon what ones and in what amounts would the receiver be entitled to recover of the guarantors? The applicants went into the subject with great thoroughness, by means of an audit made by a firm of certified accountants. These accountants returned to applicants an elaborate report, consisting of 13 pages of comments and explanations and nearly 300 pages of details of all notes found in the bank of borrowers named in Exhibit A to the guaranty. The report contained topical summaries, and also a general summary, consisting of three pages of notations and 22 columns of results of the examination with respect to each borrower. The guaranty is dated December 27, 1922. The bank closed April 28, 1924. The auditor's report to applicants is made as of May 31, 1925. In this report it is said:
The report quotes from the instructions of applicants' attorneys as follows:
The report then proceeds:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial