State Ex Rel. Banister v. Cantley

52 S.W.2d 397, 330 Mo. 943, 1932 Mo. LEXIS 809
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 15, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 52 S.W.2d 397 (State Ex Rel. Banister v. Cantley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Banister v. Cantley, 52 S.W.2d 397, 330 Mo. 943, 1932 Mo. LEXIS 809 (Mo. 1932).

Opinion

WHITE, J.

The Fidelity Bank & Trust Company, a Missouri Corporation, October 2, 1931, by resolution of its Board of Directors was placed in the hands of the Finance Commissioner of Missouri.

The Commissioner, S. L. Cantlev, who took charge October 23, 3.931, placed Special Deputy Commissioner, Hans Wulff, in charge and Wulff was in charge at the time of filing the petition for prohibition here.

May 3, 1929, relator Skmker-Northwood Investment .Company, executed a first deed of trust conveying to the Fidelity Bank & Trus< Oomnany, as trustee, certain real estate described in the relator’s netitioh to secure an issue of six per cent gold bonds amounting +6 *670 000 and that deed of trust was in force at the time the said Fidelity Company was placed in charge of the Finance Commissioner. *947 Relator, Fred Schmitt Contracting Company, was the owner and holder of one of the first mortgage bonds secured by said deed of trust. The deed of trust provides:

“In the event of the death, resignation, disqualification or any other inability or incapacity of said Fidelity Bank ’& Trust Company, when and while its services shall be required under any provisions hereof, J. U. Menteer of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, shall be and is hereby appointed its successor in trust created hereby, and in the event of the death, resignation, sickness, refusal, disqualification or any other inability or incapacity of said J-. IJ. Menteer, his successor in trust, when and while his services shall be required under any provision hereof, Wm. Brace, 'of the City of University City, State of Missouri, shall be and hereby is appointed second successor in the trust created hereby. Said J. U. Menteer or Wm. Brace, or either or both of them as such successors in trust, shall have identically the same title to said premises and the same rights, powers and duties as are hereby vested in or imposed upon said Fidelity Bank & Trust Company.”

The deed of trust further provides:

“In ease at any time said'trustee or any successors in trust hereunder shall fail or refuse to act, resign, or be removed or otherwise become' incapable of action, a successor may be appointed by the holder of the majority in amount of the bonds then outstanding, and an instrument signed by such bondholders and recorded in the office of said Recorder of Deeds, but in case no such appointment shall be made by the bondholders within ten. (10) days after the occasion for such appointment has arisen, a new trustee-may at any time thereafter be selected and appointed by any court of .competent jurisdiction in the premises upon the application of the grantor or of the holders of any of the bonds hereby secured upon such notice as said court shall direct. Such new trustee if appointed by order of court, shall in all cases be a trust company with a capital and surplus aggregating at least one million dollars ($1,000,000).”

February 24th and again February 26, 1932, Special Deputy Commissioner Hans Wulff filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in the case entitled “Tn re Liquidation of the Fidelity Bank & Trust Company” -five applications for orders to continue to act as trustee in various deecfs of trust in substantially the same form as that in which the Fidelity Bank & Trust Company was made trustee, and in each of said cases the said circuit court entered the order prayed for and, it is alleged, proposes and threatens to make a similar order with respect to the deed of trust of the said Skinker-Northwood Investment Company.

*948 Relator E. W. Banister, March 10, 1932, was appointed receiver of the Skinker-Northwood Investment Company, and as such appears for it in this ease.

Relator, E. W. Banister, Receiver of Skinker-Northwood Investment Company, March 12, 1932, filed in sa:d Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and in the cause entitled “In re Liquidation of Fidelity Bank & Trust Company,” a motion to set aside said orders authorizing respondent, Hans Wulff, Special Deputy Commissioner of Finance, to continue to act as trustee in said deeds of trust. Honorable Moses HartmaNN, the judge presiding in .said Division No. 1 of said Circuit Court, after argument and submission of said motion, indicated that he would overrule said motion of relator.

Another motion looking to the same end was overruled by Judge NortoNI, respondent.

Whereupon E. W. Banister, Receiver of the Skinker-Northwood Investment Company, and Fred Schmitt Contracting Company, owner of one of the bonds secured by said deed of trust, bring this proceeding to prevent Hans Wulff, Deputy Commissioner of Finance, from exercising the functions of trustee in said deed of tost.

I. It is claimed by relators that the Finance Commissioner has no authority to assume and discharge the functions of trustee with which the Fidelity Bank & Trust Company was invested by the deed of trust.

The functions of the Finance Commissioner, like any other official, are limited to the powers and duties imposed upon him by the statute which creates the office. [46 C. J. 1031; State ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hackmann, 276 Mo. 600, 208 S. W. 445; Lamar Township v. City of Lamar, 261 Mo. l. c. 189, 169 S. W. 12.]

An official such as the Finance Commissioner has no implied powers except such as are necessary to the effective discharge of the powers expressly conferred. [46 C. J. 1032.]

Section 5316, Revised Statutes 1929, provides that whenever the examination of the Finance Commissioner or one of his deputies shows that a private bank is insolvent or that its continuance in business shall jeopardize the safety, of its depositors or other indebtedness he is authorized to take charge.

Under Section 5319. Revised Statutes 1929, the Commissioner shall hold such possession until the affairs of the bank are finally liquidated by him, unless circumstances mentioned arise under which he may surrender such possession.

Section 5330 provides that the Commissioner is authorized, unon taking possession of the property and business of such corporation, “to liquidate the affairs thereof and to do all acts and make such *949 expenditures as in his judgment was necessary to conserve its assets and business.”

He can proceed to collect the debts, sell or compound all bad or doubtful debts, compromise claims, other than deposit claims, upon such terms as the court shall direct; he may sell or dispose of any or all of the real estate or personal property of such corporation.

Section 5332 provides that he may prosecute and defend all actions and legal proceedings necessary in the performance of his duty; he may execute, acknowledge and deliver any and all assignments, bills of sale, releases, etc., necessary and proper to effectuate any sale, lease or transfer of real or personal property, and carry into effect any power or duty imposed upon him.

It is thus seen that the general purpose of placing any financial corporation in the hands of the Finance Commissioner is to liquidate its affairs. To liquidate means to adjust, to reduce to precision in amount; to ascertain the balance due and to whom payable; to clear up; to pay and settle; to satisfy.

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

Related

Central States v. Bell Transit Co.
821 F. Supp. 1266 (N.D. Illinois, 1993)
State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Masters
512 S.W.2d 150 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
In Re the Trust Estate of Collins
190 S.W.2d 259 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1945)
In re the National Bank
47 Pa. D. & C. 47 (Fayette County Court, 1943)
Pouncey v. Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
85 F.2d 486 (Eighth Circuit, 1936)
Heymann v. O'Connell
282 Ill. App. 146 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)
Dillon v. Elmore
198 N.E. 128 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 S.W.2d 397, 330 Mo. 943, 1932 Mo. LEXIS 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-banister-v-cantley-mo-1932.