Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Lacombe v. Forstall — Opinion of the Court

It is therefore easy to conceive that when these commissioners of the bank in liquidation asked of the court, in which that liquidation was pending, for power to indorse these bonds and deliver them to Forstall's Sons for sale, that they were doing the wisest thing that could be done at that time for the creditors of the bank; for by such sale the bank would get the benefit of all that the pledged securities were worth then in the market, and by any action at law which they could bring they could recover no more.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Lacombe v. Forstall — Opinion of the Court

This indorsement, and the subsequent sale by Forstall's Sons, were in fact a waiver on both sides of the previous sale, and of any rights accruing under it, as well as a consent by both parties to the second sale. The sales appear to have been made at different times, and to different persons, each of whom became, therefore, innocent purchasers for value of the bonds which are the subject of controversy. No attempt is made to impeach the fairness of these sales. It is not even charged that the prices obtained were less than the market value of the bonds sold.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Lacombe v. Forstall — Opinion of the Court

The proposition now made by complainants, that, after waiting during all this time, and seeing the bonds rise in value, they could elect to bring suit in equity when their price had risen to par, and they were worth, with the accumulated interest and coupons, nearly three times what they were sold and accounted for, is one which does not commend itself to a court of equity.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature