Hobart v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 30 June 1881 |
| Parties | HOBART, RECEIVER, etc., v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John H Knox, for plaintiff.
Joseph H. Choate, for defendant.
The complainant alleges that the First National Bank of Newark located in Newark, New Jersey, was duly organized as a bank under the act of June 3, 1864, (13 St.at Large, 99;) that on the fourteenth of June, 1880; it became insolvent; that the plaintiff was appointed its receiver; that its assets were insufficient to pay its debts; that the comptroller of the currency, under section 12 of said act, has ordered and made an assessment on the shareholders of said bank, 'equally and ratably, to the amount of 100 per centum of the par value of the shares of the capital stock of the said association held or owned by them, respectively, at the time of its failure or suspension,' and has ordered the plaintiff to institute suits to enforce against each shareholder his personal liability, as such, to said extent; that the defendant was, at the time of said suspension and failure of said bank, a shareholder of its capital stock to the amount of 12 shares, of the par value of $100 per share, and held, or was entitled to hold, in her possession or control, the usual stock certificate as such shareholder; and that, therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for $1,200, with interest from July 14, 1880 the date of the order of assessment.
The defendant has put in an answer to the complaint. One of the separate defenses set up in the answer is that the defendant, in December, 1852, became and ever since has been, and still is, the wife of Henry W. Johnson, who at the time of the commencement of this action, was, and still is, a resident and citizen of the state of New York; that the said 12 shares were purchased by her, through her duty-constituted agent, in the state of New Jersey, while she was such married woman, and the certificate therefor was delivered to her said agent within that state; and that she never became or was the owner of any of the shares of the said bank otherwise than in the manner above stated. To that defence the plaintiff demurs, on the ground that it is insufficient in law upon the face thereof.
It is provided by section 12 of said act of 1864--
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flint v. Culbertson
...they are included is shown by the case of The Reciprocity Bank, 22 N.Y. 9; Sayles v. Bates, 15 R.I, 342, 5 A. 497; and Hobart v. Johnson, 19 Blatchf. 359, 8 F. 493. By taking the position of a shareholder she placed herself within reach of the statutory obligation. She could become a shareh......
-
Falvey v. Foreman-State Nat. Bank
...bank is incurred for the benefit of the shareholders exclusively and is thus the debt of the shareholders as principals. See Hobart v. Johnson, C.C., 8 F. 493; Ames v. American National Bank, 163 Va. 1, 176 S.E. Appellant concedes that his super-added liability is not one of suretyship, wit......
-
Gieske v. Marin
... ... stockholder survives as against his personal representatives ... Flash v. Conn, 109 U.S. 371, 3 S.Ct. 263 [27 L.Ed ... 966]; Hobart v. Johnson [C.C.] 8 F. 493, 19 Blatchf ... 359. In Massachusetts it was held, in Grew v. Breed, ... 10 Metc. [Mass.] 569, that administrators ... ...
-
Witters v. Sowles
...created, or engagements are entered into, by the bank, and it is an original liability, made by the law a part of them. Hobart v. Johnson, 19 Blatchf. 359, 8 F. 493; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U.S. 27, 7 S.Ct. 788. testator did not become liable on account of the stock, except for such debts, c......