Corstvet v. Bank of Deerfield

I can agree with some of the conclusions reached in the decision, but cannot subscribe to the ultimate result. I find no fault with a portion of the following statement: “There can be no doubt that it was the purpose of the legislature by the enactment of the amendment of sec. 220.08 (15) and by the creation of sec. 220.07 (16) to facilitate the stabilization of banks in view of the extraordinary conditions which prevailed throughout the state;” but I do pot agree with the balance of the statement which reads : “That in spite of the use of the language of the closing sentences of secs. 220.07…