Cameron v. City Bank of York
| Decision Date | 27 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 50 |
| Citation | 130 A. 407,284 Pa. 187 |
| Parties | Cameron, Appellant v. City Bank of York |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued: May 25, 1925
Appeal, No. 50, Jan. T., 1926, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. York Co., Aug. T., 1923, No. 51, dismissing exceptions to schedule of distribution in case of Peter G. Cameron, Commissioner now Secretary of Banking, v. City Bank of York. Appeal quashed.
Exceptions to schedule of distribution.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Exceptions dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was final decree.
The appeal is quashed.
Robert S. Spangler, Barnard J. Myers and Geo. W. Woodruff, Attorney General, for appellant.
Henry C. Niles, for appellee.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
The Commissioner of Banking, now Secretary of Banking, assumed possession of the State Bank of York, Pa., because of its insolvency, and proceeded, under the law, to administer its affairs. He filed an account with a schedule of distribution, which was excepted to by various creditors, and, upon disposition of these exceptions, distribution was ordered, to which order the Secretary of Banking, alone, took exception, and, from the final decree confirming it, he alone has appealed.
Neither appellant nor the Commonwealth has any legal interest in the decree of distribution from which this appeal is taken. The Act of July 7, 1919, P.L. 731, relied on by appellant, has no application to such decrees, for in them neither the Commonwealth nor any officer thereof is a party interested. The Secretary of Banking, as the representative of all the distributees, may defend a claim against the estate and appeal from a judgment or decree allowing it, and this is all that is decided in 3d Corpus Juris 659, cited by appellant in his brief against the present motion to quash; but where, as here, the dispute was between two classes of distributees, he no more represents the one than he does the other, and hence has no standing to appeal for the benefit of either.
The appeal is quashed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew v. Sac County State Bank
... ... of the 20th day of November the intervener was out of the ... city attending to his duties; and on the 21st day of ... November, 1925, the defendant bank failed to ... State ex rel. Miller v. People's State Bank , 22 ... N.D. 583 (135 N.W. 196); Cameron v. City Bank of ... York , 284 Pa. 187 (130 A. 407); How & Co. v ... Jones , 60 Iowa 70, 14 ... ...
-
Andrew v. Sac Cnty. State Bank
...N. C. 432, 37 S. E. 461;State ex rel. Miller, Attorney General, v. People's State Bank, 22 N. D. 583, 135 N. W. 196;Cameron v. City Bank of York, 284 Pa. 187, 130 A. 407;How v. Jones, 60 Iowa, 70, 14 N. W. 193;First State Bank of Corwith v. Oelke, 149 Iowa, 662, 129 N. W. 70. Bank of Montre......
-
City of York v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
...declaration of its officer or agent that it had an interest. We have held that the section has no such effect. See Cameron v. City Bank of York, 284 Pa. 187, 130 A. 407.' We believe that the Commonwealth has no real interest in this case except through the Public Utility Commission, its dul......
-
Commonwealth v. Sunbeam Water Co
... ... 561, in which it was held that ... a person who takes ordinary city water and subjects it to ... processes which involve the use of a large ... ...