Bushnell v. Leland
| Decision Date | 04 January 1897 |
| Docket Number | No. 497,497 |
| Citation | 17 S.Ct. 209,164 U.S. 684,41 L.Ed. 598 |
| Parties | BUSHNELL v. LELAND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John J. Crawford, for plaintiff in error.
F. W. Holden and Edward Winslow Paige, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, being a stockholder in the State National Bank of Wichita, Kan., was sued to enforce payment of the double liability imposed by law. The pleadings aver the existence of the legal prerequisites to the stockholder's liability, viz. the subscription by defendant to the stock, the due organization of and the authority conferred on the bank to engage in business, the suspension, the valid appointment of a receiver, and a ratable assessment made by the comptroller on the stockholders in conformity to law. Rev. St. §§ 5151, 5234.
At the trial, objection was taken and reserved to the offering in evidence of the assessment made by the comptroller of the currency, and upon the close of the testimony the ground of this objection was reiterated by way of exception to the refusal of the court to give the following instruction:
'Counsel for the defendant then moved the court to in- struct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that there is no evidence in the case to show that the action is brought for the purpose of enforcing any claim or lien of the United States; that, so far as appears from the evidence, the individual liability of the defendant as a stockholder of the State National Bank of Wichita is sought to be enforced merely for the purpose of paying the claims of private parties; that there is no evidence in this case to show that such parties are creditors of the State National Bank of Wichita, and there is no evidence to show that the fact that these parties are creditors of the State National Bank of Wichita has ever been established by any decision or order of a court of competent jurisdiction; that, so far as appears, the only decision on this point is that of the comptroller of the currency; and that his decision is of no force, for the reason that it is an attempt of an executive officer to exercise judicial functions.'
A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff, and to the judgment thereon this writ of error is prosecuted.
The assignments of error are based solely on the grounds covered by the exception taken to the introduction of testimony, the refusal to charge, as above stated, and to an asserted want of jurisdiction in the court below. All...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Linde v. Taylor
...(N. S.) 489;Commonwealth v. Libbey, 216 Mass. 356, 103 N. E. 923, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 879, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 659;Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U. S. 684, 17 Sup. Ct. 209, 41 L. Ed. 598. [6] 6. The contention that the act is void as a matter of public policy is untenable. The declaration of the pub......
-
Granader v. Public Bank
...on shareholders without previous judicial ascertainment of the necessity of such action. 12 U.S.C.A. § 191; Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U.S. 684, 17 S.Ct. 209, 41 L.Ed. 598. The determination of insolvent is a matter of judgment and discretion in the hands of the Under Section 129 of the MFIA (......
-
Hood v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York
...conclusive. Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. (75 U.S.) 498, 19 L.Ed. 476;Casey v. Galli, 94 U.S. 673, 24 L.Ed. 168;Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U.S. 684, 17 S.Ct. 209, 41 L.Ed. 598. Nothing in this opinion is to be construed as holding that without personal service within the state personal judgment c......
-
Broderick v. Rosner
...U.S. 258, 266, 22 S.Ct. 463, 46 L.Ed. 528; Rankin v. Barton, 199 U.S. 228, 232, 26 S.Ct. 29, 50 L.Ed. 163. Compare Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U.S. 684, 17 S.Ct. 209, 41 L.Ed. 598; Korbly v. Spring-field Inst. for Savings, 245 U.S. 330, 38 S.Ct. 88, 62 L.Ed. 326; Aldrich v. Campbell (C.C.A.) 97......