People v. Hager, 135.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 135.,135. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HAGER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ogemaw County; Fred P. Smith, Judge.
Stanley R. Hager was convicted of violation of a statute limiting loans of bank to any one person, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Henry R. MacGillis, of Detroit, for appellant.
Paul W. Voorhies, Atty. Gen., and William T. Yeo, Sp. Pros. Atty., of West Branch, for the People.
Defendant appeals from judgment, upon conviction of violation of 3 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 11922, 11947, providing in part:
‘The total liabilities to any bank of any person or of any company, corporation or firm for moneys advanced * * * shall at no time exceed one-tenth (1/10) part of the amount of capital and surplus of such bank.’ Section 11922, Comp. Laws 1929.
‘Every officer, clerk, agent or employee of a bank who shall knowingly aid or assist in a violation of any of the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished,’ etc. Section 11947, Comp. Laws 1929.
From January 1, 1930, to July 5, 1930, the period covered by the information, defendant was cashier and director of Union State Bank of Mio. He was also bookkeeper, and knew the extent and amount of his primary liabilities to the bank. The capital and surplus of the bank was $24,725.
A chief contention of defendant is that a large part of his liability to the bank during the time in question was by renewal of notes, and that hence liability was not as of the time and for ‘moneys advanced.’
Documentary evidence is that on December 29, 1929, defendant was liable to the bank as maker of note to it in the sum of $1,750. There is also evidence of direct borrowing from the bank by defendant beginning in April, 1930, and continuing to July, 1930, by which defendant increased his liabilities to the bank to a total sum in excess of $5,000. Defendant testified that all or nearly all of his notes given during the period stated were renewals of former notes, but this question, if it were of any importance, might be decided against him on this record.
The purpose of the statute is to limit the amount which may be loaned or advanced to any person, corporation, etc. The words of the statute ‘moneys advanced’ denote moneys paid which are to be repaid. 2 C. J. 32. All of the notes of defendant held by the bank represented moneys advanced by the bank and on which defendant was primarily liable, a liability within the statute. So it is not important whether defendant's total primary liabilities to the bank at the time in question were upon renewals of his note or notes or upon new borrowing with new or original notes, or upon both. It is important that the total of such liabilities be kept within the limit fixed by the statute. Assuming, as the record shows, that on or about January 1, 1930, defendant owed the bank on his note or notes less than $2,000, and was not offending, yet as soon as his additional notes and borrowings increased, to his knowledge, hsi total primary liabilities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allan
...facts in People v. Kolowich, 262 Mich. 137, 247 N. W. 133, are somewhat different, it may be read with profit. See, also, People v. Hager, 262 Mich. 198, 247 N. W. 153, and People v. Lewis, 262 Mich. 308, 247 N. W. 154. Error is assigned upon the admission of proof of other acts of the defe......
- De Haan v. Winter
-
Fisher v. Bernard
...special knowledge', (citation omitted) which attempt can be justified on neither principle nor difficulty of cross-examination.' (262 Mich. 197, 247 N.W. 153.) In discussing the question whether, and in what manner and to what extent, learned treatises may be used in the cross-examination o......
-
People v. Lewis, 136.
...This unwarranted increase of defendant's indebtedness to the Union State Bank clearly constituted a violation of the statute. People v. Hager (Mich.) 247 N. W. 153 (decision handed down herewith). Other questions presented by this appeal have been considered, but such of them as merit revie......