Becker v. Seymour
| Citation | 71 Minn. 394 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1898 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10,880 - (277).,s. 10,880 - (277). |
| Parties | WILLIAM M. BECKER v. FRANK A. SEYMOUR and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
On the petition of William M. Becker, in the matter of the receivership of the Bank of Minnesota, an order was made by the district court for Ramsey county, Willis, J., requiring Frank A. Seymour and William H. Lightner, receivers of the bank, to refund to the petitioner, Becker, the sum of $170.90. From this order the receivers appealed. Affirmed.
Young & Lightner, for appellants.
George L. Becker and Ira B. Mills, for respondent.
Edmund S. Durment, by consent, filed a brief for respondent.
This is an appeal by the receivers of the Bank of Minnesota from an order of the district court of Ramsey county directing them to pay to the respondent $170.90. The trial court found the allegations of the petition upon which the order is based to be true, and the only question for our decision is whether the facts found sustain the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the sum so ordered to be paid to him.
The short facts are the following: The respondent on October 17, 1896, executed to the Bank of Minnesota his negotiable promissory note for the sum of $500, due January 15, 1897, and secured its payment by a pledge of a bank certificate of deposit for the sum of $1,958.70 made to him by the Traverse County Bank, due February 1, 1897. The Bank of Minnesota borrowed of the First National Bank of St. Paul $207,964.68, and, to secure the payment thereof, transferred to it promissory notes and securities, the property of the Bank of Minnesota, to the amount and value of $616,721.69, included in which was the note of the respondent. The Bank of Minnesota did not repay such loan, but, being insolvent, it closed its doors December 23, 1896, and the appellants were appointed receivers thereof the next day.
At the time the Bank of Minnesota failed and the receivers were appointed, it was indebted to the respondent in the sum of $170.90 on open deposit account. The respondent, on the due day of his note, paid to the First National Bank of St. Paul (which, for convenience, will be designated the pledgee), the whole amount due on his note, except a balance of $170.90, which he claimed was offset by his deposit in the Minnesota Bank. The pledgee refused to allow this off-set without the consent of the receivers, which not being given, it threatened to commence an action against the respondent on his note for such balance and he then paid it under protest. The pledgee collected from the collaterals so held by it sufficient to pay its claim against the Minnesota Bank in full, and returned to the receivers collaterals, so transferred to secure its loan, to the amount and value of $409,000.
There is no controversy as to the facts, or as to the actual value of the collaterals returned. The respondent claimed that he was equitably entitled to have the $170.90 so paid by him under protest refunded to him from the money realized by the receivers from the returned collaterals, and the trial court so ordered. We agree with the receivers that set-off is only available as a defense, and, further, that the respective rights and liabilities of all the parties to this proceeding were fixed and determined when the Bank of Minnesota became insolvent, and the receivers appointed. Whatever equities the respondent then had to offset his deposit against his note could not thereafter be impaired by any act of the pledgee of his note, or of the receivers. We must therefore look beneath the external form which the transaction has assumed by the acts of the pledgee and receivers, and deal with the real facts and equitable rights of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial