TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

President, Directors of Middlesex Bank v. Minot

President, Directors, &c. of the Middlesex Bank v. William Minot, Administrator

President, Directors of Middlesex Bank v. Minot, 45 Mass. 325 (1842)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1842
Citations
45 Mass. 325
Headnotes
A bank made a loan and took a pledge of the borrower’s shares in its stock, as collateral security, with a power of sale if payment should not be made according to the terms of the loan t After the borrower’s decease, the bank sold the shares at auction, for non-payment, became the purchaser, gave credit for the amount of the sale, and claimed the balance of the borrower’s administrator, who refused to sanction the proceeding. Held, that nothing passed to the bank by this form of sale, but that it still held the shares, under its original title, as collateral security. Where a creditor of a deceased insolvent debtor holds property which was pledged to him by the debtor as collateral security, with a power of sale, his claims against the deceased cannot be allowed, unless the property is first sold, and the proceeds deducted, or its value is ascertained, by a jury or otherwise, and that value deducted ; and the balance only, as thus found, is to be allowed against the deceased’* estate.
Summary
This was an appeal, under the Rev. Sts. c. 68, § 8, from a decision of the commissioners of insolvency, appointed to receive and examine the claims of creditors against the estate of John K. Simpson, deceased, disallowing the claim of the plaintiffs against said estate, of which the defendant was administrator. The parties submitted the case to the court on the following agreed statement: “ The claim of the plaintiffs, which was presented to said commissioners and by them disallowed, was thus : “ Estate of John K. Simpson to Middlesex Bank Dr. To amount of note which was secured by pledge of Middlesex Bank stock, ........ 3-500 To do.....do. . . 2-400 To do. ... . do. . . . 1-300 7-200 Interest on said 7-200 from Oct. 1,1837, to Aug. 21,1839,1 year, 10 months, 20 days ....... 816 Amount of memorandum check ..... 187-83 Interest on 187-83 from April 19,1836, to Aug, 21,1839, 3 years, 4 months, 2 days ....... 37-63 $8-241-46 Contra. Cr. 1838. May 9th. Proceeds of 72 shares of Middlesex Bank stock sold by Stephen Brown ..... 144-00 Interest on said sum 1 year, 3 months, and 12 days, . . 11-08 155 08 Balance claimed by the bank, . . . . . . $ 8-086-38 “ The debit side of the account is correct. The said Simpson died at Boston in December 1837. The Middlesex Bank stopped payment on the 17th of January 1838. The said Simpson, at the time of the loan to him on his notes referred to in said account, by an agreement, signed by him, pledged to the bank one share in the capital stock of the bank for every hundred dollars lent, amounting to 72 shares in the whole, as collateral security for the loan. A copy of said agreement is in the margin.* On the 6th of April 1838, the administrator of said dui eased’s estate received due notice, by letter put into his hands, that unless the said notes were paid within thirty days, the shares thus pledged as collateral security would be sold at public auction, and the estate of the said deceased be held to pay the balance remaining unpaid after crediting the proceeds. Said notes not being paid within the thirty days, said shares were placed in the hands of Stephen Brown of Boston, auctioneer, who, after advertising them for sale, the usual time, in three or more of the newspapers printed at Boston, sold said shares at auction on the 9th day of May 1838. The said shares were purchased by the president of the bank, he being the highest bidder, for the benefit of the bank. Said administrator had due notice of the time and place of said sale, but never gave his consent to the sale ; nor did he make known his dissent to said sale, until the time when the bank presented its claim, for allowance, before the commissioners of insolvency on the estate of said deceased ; nor had he notice that the sale had been made. The value of said shares was not known at the time of said sale, but they have turned out to be worth something more than they sold for at said sale. Said shares are still held by the officers of the bank, in trust for the bank.” The parties agreed that if the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, they should have judgment for such sum as the court should direct; otherwise, that a nonsuit should be entered.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bv the Court.

The plaintiffs had full authority to sell the bank shares which were pledged to them, and their sale to a third person would have passed the property. But they could not be the purchasers. Nothing, therefore, passed by the form of a sale at auction, in which they purchased in the shares ; and they still hold the same under their original title, as collateral se curity for their debt. The shares must either be actually sold, and the proceeds be deducted, or their value, ascertained by a jury or otherwise, must "first be deducted from the plaintiffs’ claim, as stated, and they will then be entitled to the balance only of that claim.

[After this opinion was given, the parties agreed upon the value of the shares, and that the plaintiffs should have judgment Against the defendant for $ 5664-24, without costs.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 21935: 118932026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. Winslow155 Misc. 170 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1935)
  2. Leighton v. Burkham7 Ohio C.C. 487 (Oh. Circ. Ct. 1893)
  3. Leighton v. Burkham4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 692 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Hamilton 1893)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Winslow155 Misc. 170 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1935)
  2. Leighton v. Burkham4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 692 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Hamilton 1893)
  3. Leighton v. Burkham7 Ohio C.C. 487 (Oh. Circ. Ct. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list