The City Bank Of Macon v. Crossland

• Decision Date: 30 September 1880
• Citation: 65 Ga. 734
• Parties: The City Bank of Macon. v. Crossland et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

65 Ga. 734

The City Bank of Macon. v. Crossland et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(September Term, 1880.)

Equity. Banks. Corporations. Stockholders. Before Judge Simmons. Bibb Superior Court. October Adjourned Term. 1879.

Reported in the opinion.

R. F. Lyon; Whittle & Whittle, for plaintiff in error.

Hill & Harris; Lanier & Anderson; Bacon & Rutherford, for defendants.

HAWKINS, Justice.

In June, 1869, Crossland and other depositors and creditors of the City Bank of Macon, filed their bill on the equity side of the court, in Bibb county, against said corporation and Thomas B. Gresham, its assignee, asking an injunction— that the assets of the bank (which had by the deed of assignment of the bank been conveyed to said assignee) should be taken out of the hands of said Gresham and put in the hands of a receiver of the court, to be collected, and the proceeds preserved and applied to the payment of the just debts due by said bank, and *praying among other things, a judgment or decree against said bank for the respective amounts due said complainants, so as to proceed against the stockholders of said bank, as the law provided. The object of the bill was two-fold, to subject the assets and property of the corporation to the payment of the just debts, and to obtain decrees for the debts of complainants preparatory to enforcing the same against the stockholders under the personal liability, clause in the charter of said bank, and according to the provisions of the Code to enforce the same.

On the application for the appointment of a receiver, and a writ of error, this court held that there was no necessity for a receiver in the case at that time, but that the bill was or could be made to accomplish all that the complainants were entitled to, and if, in the pendency of the cause, the appointment of a receiver should be deemed necessary, the superior court could then act upon the matter.

The defendant and assignee answered this bill, and in the answer of the assignee exhibited a full statement of the debts and assets of said corporation.

Neither the stockholders, or other of the creditors, except the complainants, were or ever did become parties to said bill, either as complainants or defendants, by appearance and pleading.

The cause was, by order of the presiding judge, referred to a master to take the account between the parties, to report to the court the amount due complainants, the amount of assets and available property in the hands of Gresham, the assignee, the stockholders of the bank, and the amount owned by each.

On the hearing, the amounts due by the bank to complainants respectively were ascertained and so found; also the names of the stockholders and amount owned by each, andthe amount of assets in the hands of the assignee.

*The report was made to the superior court, and the defendant, the City Bank, filed exceptions thereto, which

were overruled and disallowed by the court, when, on motion of the complainants, the court, upon the report of the master, allowed and decreed to each of the complainants a judgment against the City Bank for the amount of the balance respectively due to each of them, and interested thereon, with costs of the proceeding.

To which the defendant objected, and excepts upon the grounds:

1, 2. That such a decree would not cover the issues made by the bill.

3. This was the province of a court of law, and for that alone a court of equity had not jurisdiction.

4. If this was a creditor's bill against the bank and its assignee to marshal and condemn its assets to the payment of its debts, such a decree would fall short of the intended scope and object of said bill.

5. As the complainants had, as creditors, ratified and accepted this assignment by the receipt of dividends, they were bound thereby,...