Brusselback v. Chicago Joint Stock Land Bank

1 F. Supp. 736, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1840
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedNovember 1, 1932
DocketNo. 12303
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 F. Supp. 736 (Brusselback v. Chicago Joint Stock Land Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brusselback v. Chicago Joint Stock Land Bank, 1 F. Supp. 736, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1840 (N.D. Ill. 1932).

Opinion

WILKERSON, District Judge.

This case is before the court on the motion of the plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver. The application is based on the averments of the bill alone. The bill alleges that the Chicago Joint Stoek Land Bank was organized under the Federal Farm Loan Act (12 USCA § 641 et seq.) with an original capital of $250,000. Subsequently, the capital was increased to $4,000,000. The bank issued bonds in excess of $42,000,000, of whieh the complainant owns an amount in excess of that required for jurisdictional purposes. Those bonds were secured by mortgages deposited with the registrar, pursuant to the provisions of the act.

The bill further alleges that the value of the mortgages has depreciated so that the total assets are less than $35,000,000; that the working capital has been exhausted; that there are no funds with which to pay ordinary running expenses, and that the bank has defaulted in the payment of bond interest due October 1, 1932. The Federal Farm Loan Board then declared the bank insolvent, and directed that it discontinue operations and turn over its assets to the receiver appointed by the Board.

Plaintiff’s bill is based on the theory that the mortgages and other assets held under the provisions of the act as security for the bonds constitute a trust fund which should be administered in equity for the benefit of the bondholders. The suit is brought for the purpose of procuring a proper administration of the assets assigned by the bank in trust for the protection of the bondholders and to enforce the statutory stockholders’ lia^ bility by appropriate assessment.

Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that by the Federal Farm Loan Act a definite method is provided for administering pledged assets and other property in ease of the bank’s insolvency, and that a court of equity should not take the administration of the assets out of the hands of the officers to whom it has been committed by the Farm Loan Act.

It is not denied that in view of Wheeler v. Greene, 280 U. S. 49, 50 S. Ct. 21, 74 L. Ed. 160, the creditors may maintain a suit to enforce the stockholders’ liability, and that at the appropriate time a receiver may be appointed in aid of that relief.

The question here is whether or not, in view of the provisions of the Farm Loan Act, a court of equity can withdraw the custody and control of the mortgages and other assets deposited with the registrar from the statutory receiver and the registrar.

I shall not attempt to sum up at this time the circumstances leading up to the passage of the Federal Farm Loan Act, the purpose of the act, and the general plan of whieh the joint stoek land banks form a part. It is sufficient to say that the language of the act must be interpreted with a recognition of those circumstances and with an endeavor to carry out the purpose of the act.

Attention should be directed, however, to some of the provisions of the act which must be considered in passing upon the question which has been submitted to the court.

The provision for the appointment of a statutory receiver is as follows: “Upon default of any obligation, Federal land banks and joint stoek land banks may be declared insolvent and placed in the hands of a receiver by the Federal Farm Loan Board, and proceedings shall thereupon be had in accordance with the provisions of this section regarding national farm loan associations.” Section 29, F. F. L. A., 12 USCA § 963, 39 Stat. 381.

The section relating to the appointment of receivers for national farm loan associations is in part as follows: “Upon receiving satisfactory evidence that any national farm loan association has failed to meet its outstanding obligations of any description the Federal Farm Loan Board may forthwith declare such association insolvent and appoint a receiver and require of him such bond and security as it deems proper * * *. Such receiver, under the direction of the Federal Farm Loan Board, shall take possession of the books, records, and assets of every description of such association, collect all debts, [738]*738dues, and claims belonging to it, and, with the approval of the Federal Farm Loan Board, or upon the order of a eourt of record of competent jurisdiction, may sell or compound all bads or doubtful debts, and, on a like approval or order, may sell all the real and personal property of such association, on sueh terms as the Federal Farm Loan Board or said eourt shall direct.” Section 29, F. F. L. A., 12 USCA § 961, 39 Stat. 381.

The provision for the appointment of a registrar is as follows: “The Federal Farm Loan Board shall appoint a farm loan registrar in each land bank district to receive applications for issues of farm loan bonds and to perform sueh other services as are prescribed by this chapter * * *. Farm loan registrars, deputy registrars, land bank appraisers, and land bank examiners appointed under this section shall be public officials * * Section 3, F. F. L. A., 12 USCA § 656, 39 Stat. 361.

In section 16 of the act relating to joint stock land banks, it is provided: “Except as otherwise provided, joint-stock land banks shall have the powers of, and be subject to all the restrictions and conditions imposed on, Federal land banks by this chapter, so far as such restrictions and conditions are applicable * * f‘.” Section 16, F. F. L. A., 12 USCA § 813, 39 Stat. 374.

Section 13 of the act as to the powers of federal land banks, to whieh section 16 concerning joint stock land banks relates, provides :

“Every Federal land bank shall have power, subject to the limitations and requirements of this chapter—

“First. To issue, subject to the approval of the Federal Farm Loan Board, and to sell farm loan bonds of the kinds authorized in this chapter, to buy the same for its own account, and to retire the same at or before maturity.

“Second. To invest sueh funds as may be in its possession in the purchase of qualified first mortgages on farm lands situated within the Federal land bank district within whieh it is organized or for which it is acting. * * *

“Fourth. To acquire and dispose of—

“(a) Sueh property, real or personal, as may be necessary or convenient for the transaction of its business, whieh, however, may be in part leased to others for revenue purposes.

“(b) Parcels of land acquired in satisfaction of debts or purchased at sales under judgments, decrees, or mortgages held by it. But no sueh bank shall hold title and possession of any real estate purchased or acquired to secure any debt due to it, for a longer period than five years, except with the special approval of the Federal Farm Loan Board in writing.” Section 13, F. F. L. A., 12 USCA § 781, 39 Stat. 372.

Pertinent provisions with reference to the issuing of bonds by joint stock land banks are:

“Each joint-stock land bank organized under this chapter shall have authority to issue bonds based upon mortgages taken by it in accordance with the terms of this chapter. Sueh bonds shall be in form prescribed by the Federal Farm Loan Board, and it shall be stated in such bonds that such bank is organized under this subdivision of this chapter, is under Federal supervision, and operates under the provisions of this chapter.” Section 16, F. F. L. A., 12 USCA § 821, 39 Stat. 374.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brusselback v. Chicago Joint Stock Land Bank
85 F.2d 617 (Seventh Circuit, 1936)
Gallagher v. Clark
7 F. Supp. 158 (S.D. Iowa, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 F. Supp. 736, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brusselback-v-chicago-joint-stock-land-bank-ilnd-1932.