2 FEDERAL mcronrmn.
` after February 11, 1880, and with H. H. Bowman until 1882,‘when
he died, and with Hall since January 11, 1883. At the time of the
failure, there were among the assets of the bank large amounts of
paper, in various forms, taken, for loans and; discounts to one Marshall;
· large amounts taken for loans and discounts to Albert Sowles for his own
use, and for others for whom he was surety and indorser; and to the
amount of $30,000 for loans to Edward A. Sowles. The loans and dis-
, counts to Marshall, to the amount of $35,308.75, and all of the others,
were made after February 11, 1880, and all were almost whollyvuncol-
lectible and valueless when the failure came. No dividends were de-
clared in 1880, or in the first six months of 1881, and the bank had
July 4, 1881, surplus and surplus funds to the amount of $64,000, or
thereabouts. A dividend of 6 pe1· cent. was declared on that day;
another, of the same amount, November 1st'; another December 6th;
one of 5 per cent., July 4, 1882; one of 10 per cent., December 5, 1882;
one of 3 per cent., May 1, 1883; and one of 5 per cent., November 6,
1883,-all of which were paid. Some of these dividends were declared
when there were not sutlicient assets,. in view of subsequent events, to
warrant making them. This bill is brought to charge the defendants,
` asdirectors, with the losses to the bank in consequence of these bad
loans and discountsgand with the amounts of these dividends taken from
- its assets. - »
The directors all resided at St. Albans, where the bank was located, ex·
eept»Burton, who resided at Burlington. The business of the bank was
managed principally by the cashier, who was of large experience, able,
t and competent, and of good reputation, and, until near the time of the
failure, of considerable wealth. All the loans and discounts were ap-A
proved of and made by him, and he voted for and concurred in all the
dividends. __‘The increase of the debt of Marshall appears to have been
. accomplished, by bills of exchange drawn against existing values, and
by the discount of business paper owned by him to such an extent as
A not to be in violation of any express law. Those who took part in it on
behalf of the bank appear to have acted, in _view of the liabilities he was
already under to the bank, and of the condition of his business as then
understood by them, in good faith, and as they thought would be for
. A the best interests of the bank. They had no interest with him, nor any
° apparent object to accomplish by increasing his accommodations aside
from taking the wisest course for the interests of the bank. As these
loans and discounts have resulted, they were unwise and hazardous
looked back upon, but they are to be considered as they could be looked
forwardto, and not from the present stand-point. In this view there is
no just ground upon whichany of the directors can be properly charged
for thatdebt.   Scott v. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. 513; Sper·ing’s Appeal, 71
A Pa. St. 11; Thomp. Liab.¤Oti". 233. . ..
r The ·1oans to Albert Sowles, and some of those for which he became
liable as surety or indorser, appear to havebeen in violation of the pro-
visions of section 5200, Rev. St. U.S., by. which liabilities of any per-
son to a national bank for money borrowed in excess of .one-tenth of the