4 FEDERAL anronrmn.
provisions of the statutes mentioned. This ground of liability is not
applicable to the Marshall debt, for the circumstances of the increase of
that debt are such that those who participated in it are not found to be
liable. A forttort, those who did not participate are not liable for that.
If there is any liability in thisbehalf, it must arise upon thermanner of
_ V the loans to Albert Sowles, and those for which he became liable, and
» . for some smaller loans to Edward A. Sowles, and to some others for
which he became liable, There were some of these latter for which the
defendant Burton became liable as surety or iridorser, and from which
he has become discharged in the course ofthe reoeivership. He was,
and always has since been, amply good forthese liabilities, and none of *
_the directors incurredany liability for negligence in trusting to his solv-
1 ency. This question is narrowed down to whether the defendants Bur-
, ton and Edward A. Sowles and Hall are liable for the loans on which
Albert Sowles is liable, and which were made to him, because they did
not prevent these loans. up
*` The question as to the liability of directors of national banks for mere
inattention was much considered in Mmrius v. Lee, ante, 298, in theNorth-
ern district of New York, lately decided. It was there held that direct-
ors were not liable for the acts of their associates in which they had no
part, and of which they had no knowledge, and towards which they did
not connive in any manner. Upon these principles, these defendants are
not liable on account of the loans to Albert Sowles, or of those for which
he became liable, because they did not participate in them, nor assent
· to or connive at the making of them, so far as has been made to appear.
There remains the liability of the defendants Albert Sowles and Bur-
ton for the loan to Edward A. Sowles`. If there were liabilities of these
defendants alone, or with other defendants for other loans, or for divi·
dends, it would be somewhat anomalous to include them in a decree with
‘ this liability, which is entirely distinct, although of the same nature.
It is not necessary to consider whether the liability of directors, under
such circumstances, is for the whole debt, or only for the excess; for this
» loan, which was $36,000, in the first place, was reduced to $26,000, the
exact amount of the excess, December 5, 1882. It then stood in the
form of drafts of Edward A. Sowles,——one of $5,000, on H. B. Weeks,
~ due January 8; one of $5,000, on B. C. Hall, due January 11; one of
$5,000, on H. B. Weeks, due February 8; one of $5,000, on B. C. Hall,
due February 11; and one of $6,000, on H. E. Lewis, due January 15,
1883. V
These appear to have remained of the identical loan for which the
money was passed over to him, with the full knowledge and assent of
' Albert Sowles and Burton, and of the other two directors now deceased.
This debt was not, according to the evidence, further reduced, but was
wholly lost. The damages resulting to the bank in consequence of this
loan are equal to the amount of the sums due on these drafts, with in-
terest from the times when they respectiyely fell due. ’ This interest to
April 6, 1887, amounts to $6,559.33, and the whole amount of the loss
or damage resulting from this loan is $32,559.33. This money was