Chabot v. McRae, 959.
| Decision Date | 12 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 959.,959. |
| Parties | CHABOT et al. v. McRAE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Carl O. Bay, of Ontonagon, Mich., for plaintiff.
Jones & Patek, of Ironwood, Mich., for defendant.
This action was originally brought by Lawrence E. Chabot, as conservator of the First National Bank of Ontonagon, Ontonagon, Mich., as plaintiff. Subsequent to the institution of suit, and on January 8, 1934, a trust agreement was entered into between the First National Bank of Ontonagon, as party of the first part, and Lawrence E. Chabot, J. H. Bice, and John Hawley, as trustees, reciting that under the terms of section 207 of the Bank Conservation Act (12 USCA § 207), the unsecured creditors had agreed to waive 50 per cent. of their claims against the bank for the purpose of rehabilitating it and permitting it to be returned to its board of directors in order that they might negotiate a sale of remaining assets to the new bank, and also reciting that one of the considerations for the waiver of claims was that certain nonliquid and depreciated assets should be transferred to the trustees to be liquidated for the benefit of unsecured creditors. By this agreement, pursuant to a resolution of the board of directors, the bank sold and transferred to the trustees, without recourse, all bills and notes receivable and certain other properties listed in an attached schedule, to be held in trust for the waiving creditors but subject to the rights of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation by reason of pledge to it of any of the assets.
Subsequently, by order of the court, the three trustees were substituted for the conservator as parties plaintiff, and the declaration was permitted to be amended to conform to the changed situation. The matter is now before the court upon motion of defendants to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and upon motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment, the right to which defendants concede if it shall be found that jurisdiction exists.
It is defendants' claim in general that the only fact which gave the court jurisdiction, namely, that the original plaintiff was an officer of the United States, no longer exists, and that the court is divested of jurisdiction because there is no longer a controversy in which an officer of the United States is interested. It is admitted that the three trustees are residents of this district and that no diversity of citizenship exists.
The precise question presented is whether or not the trustees may maintain suit in the federal court to recover upon assets which, upon the termination of the conservatorship of a bank and transfer of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CITIZENS'NAT. BANK IN WAXAHACHIE v. CITIZENS'NAT. BANK
...Bank (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 615; Moulton v. National Farmers' Bank (D. C.) 27 F.(2d) 403; Bell v. Kelly (D. C.) 54 F.(2d) 395; Chabot v. McRae (D. C.) 7 F. Supp. 113; Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230, 26 S. Ct. 495, 50 L. Ed. 738; Auten v. U. S. National Bank, 174 U. S. 125, 19 S. Ct. 628, 43 L. ......
-
Stevens v. Lowder, 80-7976
...L.Ed. 864 (1887); Hoehn v. Crews, 144 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1944), aff'd, 324 U.S. 200, 65 S.Ct. 600, 89 L.Ed. 870 (1945); Chabot v. McRae, 7 F.Supp. 113 (W.D.Mich.1934), to see if the civil action affects the liquidation of an insolvent national bank, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. M. C.......
- McNally v. Reynolds, 1052-1054.