Snover v. Boynton

139 N.W. 266, 173 Mich. 539, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 564
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1913
DocketDocket No. 77
StatusPublished

This text of 139 N.W. 266 (Snover v. Boynton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Snover v. Boynton, 139 N.W. 266, 173 Mich. 539, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 564 (Mich. 1913).

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

In a bill of filed, probably, in April, 1911, in the circuit court for the county of St. Clair, in chancery, the court is advised that complainant is receiver of the United Home Protectors’ Fraternity, including the supreme lodge thereof, the purposes and powers of which fraternity were:

“ To unite fraternally all reputable persons of legal age thereby promoting the social relations of its members. To diffuse the principles of economy, industry, benevolence and charity, and to more particularly encourage and foster the incentive to home building. To transact a building and loan business through the lodge system, embracing tontine and maturing benefits, with a liability limited to the payment of the matured certificates of the persistent members. To issue membership certificates in series or otherwise, to be paid out of the investment funds of the order, upon the maturity of such certificates, or as hereinafter provided. To loan money to its members and [541]*541enforce the collections of all debts and obligations due to the order. To purchase at sheriff’s sale or other judicial sale, or at any other sale, public or private, any real estate upon which the order may have a claim, and the real estate so purchased to sell, convey, rent, lease or mortgage to any person or persons whomsoever.”

The supreme lodge of the fraternity was organized in January, 1894, when it filed articles of incorporation under the provisions of Act No. 68 of the Public Acts of 1893, pursuant to which it designated the Commercial Bank of Port Huron as depositary of its funds and securities, and no other depositary was designated prior to March 28, 1908. The fraternity is insolvent and not able to pay its creditors. (When it became insolvent, or when complainant was appointed its receiver, does not appear.) Certain persons who are made parties defendant were, on March 20, 1908, and for some years prior to that date, officers of the supreme lodge of said fraternity, and had assumed to perform the duties of the respective offices.

Sixth. It was the duty of the said corporation through its officers, the supreme executive board and the supreme board of trustees, to cause to be deposited all of the funds and securities of said fraternity in the said officially designated depositary, viz., the Commercial Bank of Port Huron. When said funds were so deposited in said officially designated depositary, it became the duty of the proper officers to divide, and to eause to be divided, said funds into three separate funds or accounts as follows: A maturing benefit fund, a general fund, and an investment fund. And it then became and was the duty of the said supreme executive board and the individuals thereof, jointly and severally as trustees, directors, and officers and the depositary, viz., the Commercial Bank, to guard and protect the said funds, moneys, and securities of and belonging to the said corporation and to see that the same were not dissipated, lost or used for any other purpose or purposes than those purposes designated in Act No. 68 of the Public Acts of 1893, and the articles of incorporation and organization of said corporation and its laws hereto annexed, and made a part hereof.
Seventh. This complainant alleges that it became the duty of the said supreme executive board and each mem[542]*542ber thereof and the said depositary, viz., the Commercial Bank, to create no other funds or accounts or permit any person or persons to create any other or different funds or accounts than the said maturing benefit fund account, the general fund account, and the investment fund account, and that it became and was their joint and several duties as a supreme executive board and individual members thereof and the board of supreme trustees, and the individual members of said board, and the officers of said corporation, to not allow or permit any money, funds, or securities to be withdrawn from any of said accounts in said depositary for the purpose of creating another or a different account known as a secretary’s account, which this complainant alleges the said supreme executive board, the several officers of said corporation, and the supreme board of trustees did do and permit, viz., did permit and allow the creation of an account known as United Home Protectors’ Fraternity account and referred to as the secretary’s account or fund, and complainant alleges that the moneys and funds of said fraternity were withdrawn from the investment fund account, so kept with the said depositary, and transferred to an account known as the secretary’s account, and complainant alleges that each and all of the said persons, officers, trustees, and boards and said depositary were guilty of great negligence and a want of due and ordinary diligence in allowing and permitting the creation of said secretary’s account and the withdrawal from the investment fund account of funds and moneys as herein alleged and over which account said several persons and boards exercised no control whatever, which resulted in the loss of many thousands of dollars to said fraternity and its membership, all of which would have been prevented and the said funds and moneys saved to the said fraternity and its membership had due diligence, care, and attention been exercised by the said several persons or any of them in the performance of their duties as officers, trustees in the management of the business of said fraternity.
“ Eighth. Complainant alleges that the said trust depositary and its officers and agents were not legally authorized to transfer any of the funds or moneys of the said corporation from the investment fund account, to the said unauthorized account, viz., the secretary’s account, which the said trust depositary through its officers and agents did do, and complainant alleges that the said trust depos[543]*543itary, viz., the Commercial Bank, was guilty of great negligence in the performance of its duties as such depositary and trustee in transferring funds from the regular and legally authorized account to said secretary’s account.
Ninth. The investment funds were loaned to members of said fraternity, who made application therefor, as provided by and in the by-laws of said order. The said funds were required to be deposited in the investment fund account so kept by the said trust depositary. Complainant alleges that for many years prior to the 28th day of March, 1908, the said officers, the supreme executive board and the supreme board of trustees, and the said depositary bank, its officers and employés, jointly and severally as boards and as individuals had permitted and allowed the supreme secretary of said order to withdraw funds from said investment fund account, contrary to and in violation of the act under which said fraternity was organized and in violation of its articles of organization and the laws of said fraternity, and to deposit them to his credit as secretary of said fraternity, and the said several boards and the members thereof and the said officers, trustees, and the said depositary, and its officers and employés, in so permitting the transfer and withdrawal of said funds, were each and all guilty of great negligence, which resulted in the loss of the funds of the said fraternity in a large amount aggregating $125,000 and upwards. The complainant alleges in this connection, as a part of this paragraph, that said William L.

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

Related

Flynn v. Third National Bank
81 N.W. 572 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)
Fred Macey Co. v. Macey
106 N.W. 722 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 N.W. 266, 173 Mich. 539, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snover-v-boynton-mich-1913.