Mechanics' & Traders' Sav., Loan & Bldg. Ass'n of Chicago v. People ex rel. McCullough
| Decision Date | 19 February 1900 |
| Citation | 56 N.E. 346,184 Ill. 129 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | MECHANICS' & TRADERS' SAVINGS, LOAN & BUILDING ASS'N OF CHICAGO et al. v. PEOPLE ex rel. McCULLOUGH et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Cook county; Elbridge Hanecey, Judge.
Bill by the people, on relation of James S. McCullough, auditor of public accounts, against the Mechanics' & Traders' Savings, Loan & Building Association of Chicago and certain interveners for a dissolution of the association, and bill by Jacob Ruble and others against the same parties. The bills were consolidated. From a judgment dissolving the association, certain ex-directors and others sued out a writ of error in the supreme court, which defendants in error moved to dismiss. Dismissed.
Bowen W. Schumacher and Pence, Carpenter & High, for plaintiffs in error.
Edward C. Akin, Atty. Gen. (Pam, Calhoun & Glennon and Harry Boyd Hurd, of counsel), for the People.
O'Donnell & Brady, for defendants in error Ruble and others.
On July 31, 1897, Jacob Ruble and nine others, who are defendants in error, stockholders in the Mechanics' & Traders' Savings, Loan & Building Association, one of the plaintiffs in error, filed their bill in the circuit court of Cook county against the said association and its officers, charging mismanagement and fraud on the part of said officers, asking for a discovery and an accounting, and praying that said officers might be removed, and restrained from further conducting the business of the association, and that a receiver might be appointed. Shortly afterwards, on August 13, 1897, a bill of complaint was filed by the people, also defendant in error, on the relation of the auditor of public accounts, against said association, alleging that its affairs had been deliberately mismanaged and misconducted; that it was delinquent, and unable to carry on any business, and that the interests of the shareholders demanded immediate relief and attention and the administration of its property under the direction of the court, and praying for an injunction against continuing business, the appointment of a receiver, the winding up and dissolution of the corporation, and the distribution of the property among its shareholders and creditors. These bills were afterwards consolidated. Receivers of the association were appointed under the bill of the auditor. On August 20, 1897, Daniel P. Leyden, Henrietta Hallier, Max J. Merchant, John Burns, Ralph Bellizia, Alonzo Bellizia, M. C. Bragdon, Edward Bradley, James E. Eaton, and Neill McCoull, stockholders, filed their intervening petition, adopting the allegations made touching the mismanagement of the association, and asking for an injunction restraining the president and secretary, and the family of the secretary, from disposing of property standing in their names, but alleged to belong to the association. On November 1, 1897, Katie McCormick, Daniel P. leyden, Henrietta Hallier, Max J. Merchant, John Burns, Ralph Bellizia, Alonzo Bellizia, M. C. Bragdon, Edward Bradley, James Eaton, Neill McCoull, Harriet B. Greeley, and Kate E. Greeley, alleging that they were stockholders of the association, asked the court to be made parties defendant to the consolidated bills, and their motion was granted. On November 8, 1897, Neill McCoull and Katie McCormick answered the consolidated bills and all amendments, admitting the allegations of the bill of the auditor, except as to whether certain shares were legal, and admitting the allegations of the bill of Ruble as to the secretary, and charges of illegal management of the association. They joined in the prayer of the bill for the appointment of a receiver and the dissolution of the corporation. On November 27, 1897, the association filed answers to the bills of complaint. Its answer to the bill of the people alleged that the amendatory act under which he bill was filed by the auditor was unconstitutional, and denied that the association was insolvent, or that a receiver was required. The answer to the bill of Ruble denied the charges of mismanagement. On December 2, 1897, William E. Rollo and William F. Rollo, creditors of the association, answered the bills, admitting their allegations. Kate E. Greeley and Harriet B. Greeley, stockholders, answered, admitting the allegations of the auditor, and that an injunction should be issued, and a receiver appointed, and the association would up and dissolved, and they joined in the prayer of the amended bill. Ralph Bellizia, Alonzo Bellizia, Julius E. Thomas, Henrietta Hallier, Daniel P. Leyden, Max J. Merchant, M. C. Bragdon, Edward Bradley, James E. Eaton, and John Burns answered the consolidated bills, admitting the mismanagement and insolvency of the association, but demanded strict proof as to the amount of the insolvency. On December 9, 1897, Katie McCormick, Harriet B. Greeley, Kate E. Greeley, Ralph Bellizia, Alonzo Bellizia, Julius E. Thomas, Henrietta Hallier, Daniel P. Leyden, Max J. Merchant, M. C. Bragdon, Edward Bradley, James E. Eaton, and John Burns filed their cross bill in behalf of themselves and all other stockholders who might join therein against the association and its officers, setting up the charges before made against the officers and association, and asking for an injunction against the secretary, and that the association should be declared insolvent, and its assets disposed of, and the association wound up under a receivership. On the motion of the complainants in the cross bill the receivership was extended over the property described in the cross bill. This cross bill was amended December 15th, and still prayed the same relief. There was a supplemental answer of the association, filed December 22, 1897, setting forth that the association had been unable to accomplish either reorganization or liquidation, and submitting the interests of the association to the consideration of the court, with consent that such decree might be entered as to the court might seem proper and right. On said lastmentioned day a decree was entered in the consolidated cause, finding that the allegations of the bills of complaint were true. The injunction was made perpetual, and the decree provided that the association should be dissolved and wound up, and its assets and property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Amerman
...Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co. v. City of Ottawa, 165 Ill. 207, 46 N.E. 213; Mechanics' and Traders' Savings, Loan & Building Ass'n v. People ex rel. Auditor of Public Accounts, 184 Ill. 129, 56 N.E. 346; and Cummings v. People, 211 Ill. 392, 71 N.E. 1031. People for Use of State Bd. of Hea......
-
People v. Brand
...challenging its validity must have preserved proper exceptions to such ruling. Mechanics' and Traders' Savings, etc., Ass'n v. People ex rel. Auditor of Public Accounts, 184 Ill. 129, 56 N.E. 346; People v. McCoy, 132 Ill. 138, 23 N.E. 344; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City ......
-
Campbell v. McLain
...712;Masonic Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 217 Ill. 58, 75 N. E. 439;Cummings v. People, 211 Ill. 392, 71 N. E. 1031;Mechanics' Savings Ass'n v. People, 184 Ill. 129, 56 N. E. 346;Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570. The question raised on the second point is whether the will of one who subsequently......
-
People ex rel. Goldman v. Harrison
...Ill. 574, 45 N. E. 983;Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Ottawa, 165 Ill. 207, 46 N. E. 213;Mechanics' Savings Ass'n v. People, 184 Ill. 129, 56 N. E. 346;Cummings v. People, 211 Ill. 392, 71 N. E. 1031. It is too late to raise the question of the validity of the ordinanc......