Burket v. Reliance Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | 24053.,Gen. Nos. 23937 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | BURKET et al. v. RELIANCE BANK & TRUST CO. et al. SCHWARTZ et al. v. BROADWAY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF AURORA et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suits by Frank Burket and others against the Reliance Bank & Trust Company and others, and by Henry F. Schwartz and others against the Broadway Trust & Savings Bank of Aurora and others. From decrees for the plaintiffs in each case, the defendants appeal, the appeals being consolidated in the Supreme Court.
Causes transferred.Appeals from Superior Court, Cook County; John P. McGoorty, judge.
Winston, Strawn & Shaw, of Chicago (Silas H. Strawn, Frederick C. Hack, George T. Evans, and George W. Ott, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants A. G. Leonard and others.
W. Robert Brown, of Chicago, for appellant Ernst Kessling.
Shulman, Shulman & Abrams, of Chicago (Meyer Abrams, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants Frederick C. Croft and others.
Harry C. Hanson, of Geneva, and Alschuler, Putnam & Johnson, of Aurora (Edward F. Streit, of Aurora, of counsel), for appellants Broadway Trust & Savings Bank of Aurora and others.
Clyde L. Day, of Chicago, Little & Latham, of Aurora, and Seyfarth & Atwood and Leonard & Leonard, all of Chicago (Merritt J. Little, of Aurora, Karl Edwin Seyfarth and Benton Atwood, both of Chicago, and Julian E. Latham, of Aurora, of counsel), for appellees.
Plaintiffs in cause No. 23937 brought a representative suit in the superior court of Cook county in behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the Reliance Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, against the defendants and other stockholders of said bank, to enforce the constitutional liability of said stockholders.
Cause No. 24053 is a similar suit instituted in the circuit court of Kane county for the purpose of enforcing the stockholders' constitutional liability against certain stockholders of the Broadway Trust & Savings Bank of Aurora. A decree in each case was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and an appeal in each case was perfected to this court under the claim that a constitutional question is involved. The controversial point in the cases is the same, and they have been consolidated in this court for consideration.
The defendant stockholders of the Reliance Bank & Trust Company contend that other stockholders of said company, who held stock therein contemporaneously with them and for the same period of time, paid to the receiver appointed in the creditor's suit sums aggregating more than the amount of unsatisfied liabilities of the Reliance Bank & Trust Company to its creditors which accrued during such period of time, and that such payments discharged the defendant stockholders from further liability to the creditors of said Reliance Bank & Trust Company. The same legal contention is made in cause No. 24053.
Both sides agree to the principle that a stockholder's liability in a defunct state bank is measured by the unsatisfied liabilities which accrued during the period of stock ownership, subject to the limitation that the stockholder's liability shall not exceed the par value of the stock held by him. In ascertaining the liability of an individual stockholder, the court in which the representative suit is pending must ascertain two primary facts: First, the aggregate amount of liabilities which accrued while the stockholder held his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings-Landau Laundry Mach. Co. v. Koplin
...Act. Goodrich v. Sprague, 376 Ill. 80, 32 N.E.2d 897;Corcoran v. City of Chicago, 373 Ill. 567, 27 N.E.2d 451;Burket v. Reliance Bank & Trust Co., 366 Ill. 98, 7 N.E.2d 850;Spencer v. Chicago City R. Co., 366 Ill. 120, 7 N.E.2d 862. A motion was made in this court to dismiss the writ of err......
-
Holdermen v. Moore State Bank
...the claim that the meaning of section 6 of article 11 of the Constitution is in doubt or is undetermined.’ In Burket v. Reliance Bank & Trust Co., 366 Ill. 98, 7 N.E.2d 850, 851, we said: ‘In ascertaining the liability of an individual stockholder, the court in which the representative suit......
-
Comstock v. Morgan Park Trust & Sav. Bank
...and no cross-bill was necessary. The constitutional provision deals only with liabilities, that is, unpaid debts. Burket v. Reliance Bank & Trust Co., 366 Ill. 98, 7 N.E.2d 850. The appellees reply that this is a harmless error for two reasons, the first of which is, that the right of a deb......
-
Lewis v. West Side Trust & Sav. Bank
...review. Defendants' contention as to the effect of payments by other stockholders is based upon what we said in Burket v. Reliance Bank & Trust Co., 366 Ill. 98, 7 N.E.2d 850, to the effect that if a group of stockholders pays a sum equal to the liabilities that accrued during their period ......