Hallett v. Fish
| Decision Date | 17 March 1903 |
| Citation | 120 F. 986 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | HALLETT v. FISH. |
H Henry Powers, for plaintiff.
Frank L. Fish and Ebenezer J. Ormsbee, for defendant.
D Henry Lewis was a director and the cashier of this bank which, partly through his mismanagement, had become insolvent and embarrassed, and this condition became known to the other officers, and an examination was being had April 9, 1901. The shortage was then supposed by them to be about $35,000. The plaintiff was engaged to marry Lewis, was temporarily at Vergennes, and had stocks and bonds in a savings bank at Concord, N.H. The shortage was principally at the National Bank of Redemption at Boston. A director provided $10,000. Lewis applied to the plaintiff for $25,000. She hesitated but soon consented to furnish securities for that amount, to be pledged at the Bank of Redemption. She got them from the savings bank, took them to Boston, and let Lewis take them to the Bank of Redemption, where a note of Lewis to that bank for $25,000 was prepared, with a consent by her that he might pledge her securities for payment of the note, which she went and signed on April 11th, and the amount of the note was credited to the Farmers' Bank. The shortage of the Farmers' Bank was found to be, by greater misapplications of Lewis than were supposed, and those of others, much larger than was expected, showing it to be hopelessly insolvent; and it was closed by the Comptroller of the Currency and put into liquidation on the 13th. The plaintiff paid the note of Lewis to the Bank of Redemption to save her securities, and has brought this suit to have the amount so paid decreed to her out of the assets. The defense is that the plaintiff dealt with Lewis solely, and has no just claim, or none but that of a common creditor, against the assets of the bank.
The plaintiff's securities have swelled the assets of the bank to the extent of $25,000, without any advantage to her or loss to the bank; still, if she aided Lewis solely, and he the bank, she must look to him for her property, and the bank was held only to him, however disastrous that may be to her interests. This makes it necessary to see carefully how and on what inducements she parted with her securities. No one saw her about making the arrangement but Lewis, and no one else about carrying it out, but the cashier of the Bank of Redemption; and what it was is to be ascertained from their testimony, and the circumstances shown by the testimony of others. Her testimony is consistent throughout, and does not differ materially from Lewis' as to the facts. That he has stated differently and stated that the securities were furnished to him, and by him to the bank, does not prove that the facts were as he is shown to have stated, but only affects the weight of his testimony in comparison between theirs as to the facts, and the evidence, if any, the other way. Their testimony is that he told her the bank was in trouble and must have immediate help, and there is no testimony that he told her that he was in distress and needed help, or that he was interested in procuring help, otherwise than through the bank. His testimony, although impeached by these contrary statements, for what value is left to it, corroborates hers, and there is nothing but the form of the papers taken by the Bank of Redemption to qualify hers. The paper required of her by that cashier was this:
To continue reading
Request your trial