Brackett v. Middlesex Banking Co.
Decision Date | 27 July 1915 |
Citation | 95 A. 12 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | BRACKETT et al. v. MIDDLESEX BANKING CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action by Anna J. Brackett and others against the Middlesex Banking Company. Applications of the Middletown Trust Company and another, trustees and receivers of the defendant company, for directions. From the order and judgment, the trustees appeal. Reversed, and judgment directed for trust companies.
The Middlesex Banking Company loaned funds on mortgages on Western farm lauds, which in different forms were sold to investors. The most common form of these investments was to issue and sell the notes of the Banking Company, called debenture bonds, the payment of which was secured by the deposit with a trust company of mortgages, accompanied by an assignment of them to the trust company under a trust agreement, and these were substantially similar in form. The collateral so deposited was arranged in series of from $25,000 to $100,000, and each group was separate from the other, and under an independent trust agreement pledged for the payment alone of the debentures issued against the collateral of this group. There are in force 15 of these collateral trust agreements. Twelve of these were made originally with the Columbia Trust Company, and upon its dissolution the Middletown Trust Company was appointed by the superior court trustee in its stead. Two of these agreements were made directly with the Middletown Trust Company, and one with the Security Trust Company, under its then name of Security Company. Each debenture bond recited that it was one of a series of bonds of like form and tenor issued by the Middlesex Banking Company under and subject to the provisions of the trust agreement of a named date between the Banking Company and the Trust Company, and secured by certain collateral deposited under this agreement with the Trust Company as trustee. Upon the bond the Trust Company certified its number and series, and that the collateral so deposited with it was equal to the bonds certified to under the trust agreement. Under these agreements the trust companies were not to record the assignments except upon default, the provision in reference to which in the Columbia Trust Company and the Security Trust Company agreements was as follows:
These agreements also provided:
"Whenever said Banking Company shall make default in the payment of the principal or interest of any bond, it shall, at the request of said ——, forthwith deliver to the said —— all abstracts of title and all other papers in its possession or under its control relating to the collateral deposited with said —— for the series of bonds to which such defaulted bond shall belong; but until such default only the notes, bonds, assignments, mortgages and deeds of trust hereby guaranteed by said Banking Company to be first liens on real estate shall be deposited with said —— as collateral for any series of bonds."
The provision in reference to default in the Middletown Trust Company agreements was as follows:
The agreements also provided:
The Middlesex Banking Company some years ago took over on foreclosure a large acreage in the West and South. In order to liberate the sums so invested in these lands it organized the Realty Investment Company, sold it these lands, and took in payment mortgages for the full value of the lands and deposited these mortgages with a trust company, to secure payment of its own debenture bonds which it sold to the public, the method being as already described. About 60 per cent. of the collateral now held by the Middletown Trust Company consists of these mortgages. The Banking Company also holds as trustee a large amount of mortgages of the Realty Investment Company as security for the payment of the debenture bonds of the Investment Company.
On November 30, 1914, the directors of the Banking Company voted to go into voluntary liquidation, and on January 18, 1915, the court appointed two receivers of this company, who entered upon their duties and are now so engaged. Subsequently these receivers were duly appointed receivers of the Realty Investment Company.
The Middlesex Banking Company for the more efficient conduct of its business, very early established a western office at St. Paul, Minn., and later in various other states of the West. All these were manned by men who became, through years of contact with the borrowers, very familiar with all the sections where the company made its loans in the various states; extensive and valuable maps and much other detailed and technical knowledge of the locality and people with whom the company was dealing were accumulated, and are now in the possession of the receivers.
The borrowers have always been, to a very large extent, foreign-born, and without bank accounts, and often with little education; and personal contact with them by the representatives of the Middlesex Banking Company early became an important and an indispensable feature of its western business. These representatives visited the borrowers, kept their farms under observation, saw that the insurance, taxes, and other charges were paid, collected the interest and principal when due, etc. This work should still be done by personal contact, and cannot be effectually done by correspondence, or by strangers. This method of handling the property results in keeping the farms under cultivation, the buildings in repair, the taxes paid, and the lands improved, and the continuance of the arrangement becomes very important for the preservation of the values of the farms, which, if abandoned, deteriorate rapidly, and could only be sold, if at all, at figures which would be disastrous to the holder of the mortgage and would, in most cases, wholly destroy the equity.
All the mortgages, those on the lands of individual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Powell v. Maryland Trust Co., 4865.
...suit of creditors on the ground of insolvency constituted a default within the meaning of the terms as there used. Brackett v. Middlesex Banking Co., 89 Conn. 645, 95 A. 12. And since the reservation of dividends was for only so long as the Seaboard was not in default, no action on the part......
-
State ex rel. Banister v. Cantley
... ... R. S. 1929, sec ... 5316, et seq., supra; Sullivan v. Kuolt, Commissioner of ... Banking, 156 Wis. 72, 145 N.W. 210; Mitchell, Chief ... State Bank Examiner v. Shuford, 156 S.E. 513; ... Brackett v. Middlesex Banking Co., 89 Conn. 645, 95 ... A. 12. (b) The Missouri statutes heretofore set ... ...
-
McCarthy v. Tierney
... ... assume the exercise of it. Brackett v. Middlesex Banking ... Co., 89 Conn. 645, 658, 95 A. 12; Smith v ... Wildman, 37 Conn. 384, ... ...
-
First Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Bernardin
...Real Estate Trust Co. of Philadelphia v. New England Loan & Trust Co. (C. C.) 93 F. 701. The case of Brackett v. Middlesex Banking Co., 89 Conn. 645, 95 A. 12, 16, is somewhat in point in the present case. There the court's order gave to the receiver control of certain collateral held by th......