WITTERS· v. sowLEs. 5
borrowed by Edward A. Sowles to pay for stock of the bank for the pur-
pose of securing harmony among the officers and stockholders, and it is
said in evidence that the transaction was reported to the comptroller of
the currency, and received his approval. Whether his approval ex·
tended beyond the organization of the board of directors, who had lately
been constituted, does not appear. If it did, he could not, and prob-
“ ably did not attempt to, vary any liability imposed by express statutes.
It is suggested, also, that the conduct of the receiver who preceded the
plaintiff has contributed to increase the loss from the poor assets. Such,
however, `does not appear to be the fact, and, if it did, it would not
affect the liability of any of the defendants on account of this unlaw-
ful loan, unless some partrof the loss resulting from the loan was due
to itp When the directors let this sum of $36,000 of the money of
the bank go into the hands of Edward A. Sowles, as money borrowed
by him of the bank, they placed it outside of where the law authorized
them to place it, and became liable, then and there, for the excess
above the legal limit at least, and chargeable for it, if, in consequence, it
should be lost. What occurred afterwards had no effect upon the liabil-
ity, except as it may have varied the amount of the loss. The result is
that the defendants Albert Sowles and Burton are chargeable for the
amount of this loss. There is no occasion for an account of it, for the
amount edistinctly appears. The defendants Edward A. Sowles and
Hall are not, upon these considerations, chargeable for any of the losses
in this suit; but they are so connected with these matters that they do
not appear to be entitled to costs.
ip Let a decree be entered that the defendants Albert Sowles and Burton ·
are chargeable for the amount of the loss on the loan of $36,000 to Ed-
_ ward A.$Sowles, ascertained to be $32,559.33, and that they pay that
sum to the orator, with costs to be taxed, within 20 days from the entry
of the decree, and that the bill be dismissed as to Edward A. Sowles and ‘
Hall, without costs. . ’ l ~ -   - `
  . I AWITTERS, Receiver, etc., v. SOWLEB and `bthers.
(Oircuit Oou/rt, D. Vermont. May 2, 1887.) ` ’ .
1. Eo,urrv—-Oiurnrne Dnormn ron Fnrvrrmn Tnsrmonv.
A party will not be allowed to open a case and have evidence retaken,
_where his motion papersvfail to show newly—disc0vered evidence, or evidence
of which the party could not avail himself at the nrst hearing, and where it
appears that the party merely wishes to deny what he did not deny before,
but which called for denial then as much as at the time of the application for
a rehearing. V,
2. Sams. » » ‘ .
’ No mistakes of judgment, or want of attention or capacity of counsel, afford
any just or proper grounds for granting a motion to open a. case.
In Equity. . . i -