Merchants' Nat. Bank of Richmond v. National Bank of Lillington
| Decision Date | 15 February 1916 |
| Parties | MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK OF RICHMOND v. NATIONAL BANK OF LILLINGTON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
W. H Pace, of Raleigh, N.C., for receivers.
Clifford & Townsend, of Dunn, N.C., for judgment creditor.
The facts appearing upon the record disclose this case: The stockholders of the National Bank of Lillington, on the 22d day of January, 1912, adopted a resolution, pursuant to the provisions of section 5220 of the National Banking Act, 5 F Stat. Anno. 166, 167, to place the bank in liquidation, and appointing J. R. Baggott, Esq., liquidating agent, or liquidator. The resolution was duly certified to and approved by the Comptroller of the Currency. The liquidator qualified took into his possession the assets of the bank, and proceeded to wind up its business in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Subsequent to the appointment and qualification of the liquidator, J. B. Lanier, to whom said bank was indebted, on account of a balance due him as a depositor, instituted an action against the bank in the superior court of Harnett county, securing service of the summons on the liquidator, and recovered judgment for the sum of $1,491.44, together with interest and cost, which judgment was docketed January 12, 1914, in the superior court of the county of Harnett and of the county of Lee. L. D. Burwell recovered judgment on February 2, 1914, against the bank in a justice's court for $120, which was duly docketed in said counties.
On the 20th day of February, 1914, a suit in equity was instituted in this court by the Merchants' National Bank of Richmond, in behalf of itself and all other creditors of the National Bank of Lillington, alleging that the bank was insolvent, and that its assets in the hands of the liquidator were not being properly administered, etc. A decree was passed, March 2, 1914, appointing John H. Boushall and R. B Teague receivers, and directing the liquidator to turn over and deliver to them all of the moneys and property of said bank to be administered for the benefit of the creditors. In obedience to said decree, he turned over, among other property, to the receivers, one lot situated in the town of Lillington, N. C., Harnett county, and one lot situated in the town of Sandford, in the county of Lee, belonging to said bank. Pursuant to an order made in this cause, the receivers sold said lots free from liens, for the sum of $3,250, which sum they have, or will have, when collected, in hand, subject to be disbursed in accordance with the orders of the court and the rights of the creditors. The judgment creditors claim a lien upon the said lot, by virtue of the docketing of their judgments, prior to the appointment of the receivers. For the purpose of ascertaining their duty and the rights of the judgment creditors, the receivers, upon notice to the judgment creditors, filed a petition in the cause, asking the instruction of the court in the premises. The question presented for decision is whether, by obtaining judgments and docketing them, as prescribed by the statute (Revisal, Sec. 574), against the bank subsequent to the appointment of the liquidator and prior to the appointment of the receivers, a lien was acquired upon the real estate owned by the bank in liquidation. The National Bank of Lillington, in appointing a liquidating agent, proceeded pursuant to R.S. Secs. 5220, 5221, 5 Fed.Stat.Anno. 166, 167. The statute is silent in respect to details, but it would seem that the appointment of the liquidator has the same legal effect upon the assets and the rights of creditors and stockholders as the appointment of a receiver by the Comptroller of the Currency. It is held that the bank is not dissolved, nor its corporate existence destroyed, by being put in liquidation. The liquidator may sue for the recovery of debts due, or rights belonging to, it, or may be sued upon the debts owing by the bank, for the purpose of fixing their amount. In National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U.S. 54, 76, 26 L.Ed. 693, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Farmers State Bank
...in law, capable of suing and being sued, until its affairs and business are completely settled." See, also, Merchants' Nat. Bank v. National Bank of Lillington (D. C.) 231 F. 556; Moss v. Goodhart (D. C.) 209 F. 102, to the same The rule is stated in 8 A. L. R. 442, as follows: "As suggeste......
-
Wise v. Potomac Nat. Bank
...amount of the debt. Central National Bank v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 104 U.S. 54, 26 L.Ed. 693;Merchants' National Bank v. National Bank of Lillington, D.C., 231 F. 556. An action for waste presents an issue of fact as to whether waste has been permitted and, if waste is establish......
-
Southwest Nat. Bank v. Farracy
...George v. Wallace (C. C. A.) 135 F. 286, affirmed Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230, 26 S. Ct. 495, 50 L. Ed. 738; Merchants' National Bank v. National Bank (D. C.) 231 F. 556. It may be assumed that the government is no longer interested in the outstanding circulation of the bank, since unde......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Jackson
... ... national bank in contemplation of insolvency transfers its ... assets with a view ... referred to in the case of Merchants' National Bank ... of Richmond v. National Bank of Lillington (D.C.) 231 ... ...