George Rankin v. Edward Barton
| Decision Date | 13 November 1905 |
| Docket Number | No. 125,125 |
| Parties | GEORGE C. RANKIN, Receiver of the Hutchinson National Bank, Plff. in Err. , v. EDWARD E. BARTON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. H. Whiteside for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. George A. Vandeveer and F. L. Martin for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 228-230 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
The question in this case is the application of the statute of limitations of a state to the liability of a stockholder of a national bank before the amount of such liability has been ascertained and assessed by the Comptroller of the Currency. The trial court held the statute applicable, and its judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state.
The petition was filed November 13, 1902, and averred that the Hutchinson National Bank became insolvent in 1893, and plaintiff in error was appointed its receiver. On July 9, 1894, the Comptroller of the Currency ordered an assessment of $75,000 upon the individual liability of the stockholders, being $75 on each share, to pay the debts of the bank. After application of the amounts collected, and after further accounting, it was found necessary to make another assessment, and on November 20, 1900, the Comptroller of the Currency made another assessment of $19,000, being $19 upon each share. It was averred 'that said assessment was made just as soon as discovered, in the exercise of diligence, to be necessary, and just as soon as it was ascertained that the first assessment and assets of the bank were insufficient.' The amount due from defendant in error was $627, for which judgment was prayed. A demurrer was sustained to the petition on the ground that it showed on its face that the cause of the action was barred by the statute of limitations of the state. In sustaining this ruling, the supreme court of the state said: (1) That although the cause of action arose under the act of Congress, which prescribed no limitation on the remedy against stockholders, the statute of the state applied; and (2) the statute commenced to run, not when the assessment was made against a stockholder, but was put in motion by delay in making the assessment. Prior decisions of the supreme court of the state were relied on for this conclusion. They established the local law to be, it was said, that when an act to be done is wholly within the control of the party suing, he must perform it within a reasonable time, and such time cannot extend the period within which the action would be barred if no such preliminary step were necessary. And it was decided that the averment of the petiton, that the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moran v. Cobb
...in respect of stockholders' liabilities commence to run from the date of the assessment by the Comptroller. Rankin v. Barton, 1905, 199 U.S. 228, 26 S.Ct. 29, 50 L.Ed. 163; McDonald v. Thompson, 1902, 184 U.S. 71, 22 S.Ct. 297, 46 L.Ed. 437. But we held that the action was commenced too lat......
-
Broderick v. Rosner
...& Co. v. Wilkinson (C.C.A.) 72 F.(2d) 10; see Studebaker v. Perry, 184 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, 2......
-
United States Fidelity Co. v. First State Bank
... ... 185 U.S. 192, 43 L.Ed. 862, pamphlet page 25; Rankin v ... Barton, 199 U.S. 228, 50 L.Ed. 163, pamphlet page 31; ... ...
-
Forrest v. Jack
...S.Ct. 297, 46 L.Ed. 437; McClaine v. Rankin, 197 U.S. 154, 159, 160, 25 S.Ct. 410, 49 L.Ed. 702, 3 Ann.Cas. 500; Rankin v. Barton, 199 U.S. 228, 232, 26 S.Ct. 29, 50 L.Ed. 163. 6 Rankin v. Barton, 199 U.S. 228, 232, 26 S.Ct. 29, 50 L.Ed. 163; Christopher v. Norvell, 201 U.S. 216, 225, 26 S.......