Bergling v. Wardell, 7525.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7525.,7525. |
| Citation | 115 F.2d 948 |
| Parties | BERGLING v. WARDELL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
E. Hilton Jackson and William E. Richardson, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Brice Clagett and Charles E. Wainwright, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, C. J., and EDGERTON and VINSON, Assoc. JJ.
In September, 1934, appellee's predecessor, as Receiver of the Seventh Street Savings Bank, began this action against appellant to recover $2,000 with interest on account of a double liability stock assessment made by the Comptroller of the Currency on July 5, 1934. Appellant had acquired her stock in June, 1930. This is the second appeal. On the first,1 we had before us a single question, whether the receiver was required to prove that the debts for which the assessment was made accrued during the period of appellant's ownership of the stock. Since the bank was incorporated under the laws of West Virginia even though it operated exclusively in the District of Columbia, we held that the question should be answered in the light of the laws of that state. The West Virginia statute imposed double liability on a bank stockholder "on obligations accruing while he is a shareholder".2 In accordance with the decisions of the West Virginia court which construed this law, we held that the receiver was entitled to recover only upon a showing that the debts for which the assessment was made accrued while appellant was a stockholder. In the subsequent trial the receiver proved that at the time the bank was closed (March 3, 1933), and at the date of the appointment of the receiver (December 21, 1933), and on the date of the Comptroller's 100 per cent assessment (July 5, 1934), there existed unpaid indebtedness of the bank, accrued while appellant was a stockholder, which exceeded the total par value of the bank's entire outstanding stock.
On this appeal the real and substantial question is whether appellant was entitled to have the assessment apportioned between herself and the prior owners of the same shares or, stated differently, whether there must be a prior apportionment of the indebtedness among the present and former stockholders as a condition precedent to the right of the receiver to enforce liability. No such apportionment had been made.
The question is interesting, and, if it were not, as we think, foreclosed, would...
To continue reading
Request your trial