The opinion of the court was delivered by: Campbell, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this action, seeking damages in the amount
of $125,000 occasioned by the alleged wrongful mishandling by
defendant of collateral pledged by plaintiff to the National
Bank of the Republic of Chicago to secure certain notes
executed by plaintiff, which notes and collateral were
assigned to defendant by the Bank. Defendant denies liability
and counterclaims, alleging that plaintiff still has not paid
two judgments entered against him in favor of defendant in
this court in 1937.
It appears from the pleadings that, on March 26, 1931,
plaintiff executed three 30-day notes to the Bank in the
principal amounts of $85,694.45, $5,689.71, and $1,329.69. The
first two notes were executed by plaintiff personally, and the
third was executed by Victor A. Dorsey & Co., but personally
guaranteed by plaintiff. The third note has been fully paid.
In his answer to the counterclaim, plaintiff asserts that any
action on the second note is barred by the Statute of
Stated briefly, plaintiff makes the following assertions:
(1) That $11,000 of the indebtedness to the Bank represents
the purchase price of 60 shares of the Bank's own stock, sold
to him in October, 1930. He claims that the price was
originally evidenced by his note for $11,000 which was later
renewed and consolidated with other notes in the $85,694.45
note. He alleges that the sale of the Bank stock was void
under the provisions of 12 U.S.C.A. § 83, and that the note
should be reduced by that amount; (2) That the liquidation of
his collateral brought sums sufficient to pay his obligations
as early as June 21, 1944, and that, since that time, he has
made repeated requests for a refund of alleged overpayments, as
well as for the return of the remaining collateral; (3) That
subsequent to June 21, 1944, defendant arbitrarily sold
additional collateral held as security for his debts; (4) That
subsequent to the maturity of his debts, he requested defendant
from time to time to sell his collateral when the market was
high, but defendant did not comply with his requests; (5) That
he did not receive credit for the proceeds of the sale of a
group of bonds of the Empire State Oil Co. held by defendant as
On the other hand, defendant contends that the notes have
not been fully paid for the following reason: In 1931 the Bank
credited plaintiff in the amount of $30,000, which sum was
received by plaintiff from the Arkansas Natural Gas
Corporation in settlement of a claim against it by the Victor
A. Dorsey & Co. This money was paid over to the Bank in
payment of plaintiff's personal obligation. Subsequently,
creditors of Victor A. Dorsey & Co. brought garnishment
proceedings against the Bank to recover a portion of the
amount so paid. They obtained judgments in the amount of
$9,084.69, which judgments were affirmed upon appeal. See
Dorsey & Co. v. Central Republic Trust Co., 277 Ill. App. 126.
The Bank paid the judgments, and plaintiff's account was
debited in the amount of the judgments plus interest.
In the course of these proceedings, defendant served
plaintiff with three sets of Requests for Admissions — 50
paragraphs in all. Plaintiff answered some of them and objected
to others. Defendant opposes the objections, and moves to
strike plaintiff's answer to the First Request.
The pleadings of the parties have developed into such a
muddle, it is necessary that the Court separate them in the
A. As to defendant's First Request for Admissions
(Paragraphs 1 to 30) —
Defendant requests that plaintiff admit the truth of the
thirty statements, nearly all of which have to do with
exhibits attached to the Request. For the most part,
plaintiff's Answer to the Request is unresponsive and, to make
matters worse, is directed to the exhibit numbers rather than
the paragraph numbers. Reduced to its simplest terms,
plaintiff's Answer amounts to this:
He admits — Request Paragraphs 20, 21 and 27.
He does not answer — Paragraph 28. He admits the
genuineness of the documents referred to in —
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
He does not admit — Paragraphs 29 and 30.
He has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny
the exhibits referred to in — Paragraphs 6 to 14,
and 23 to 26.
He objects to — The exhibits referred to in
Paragraphs 4 and 22 on the ground that ...