Parker v. Robinson, 143.

Decision Date15 November 1895
Docket Number143.
PartiesPARKER v. ROBINSON.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

Action by William S. O'B. Robinson, receiver, against Gustavus D. Parker, executor and trustee. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

NATIONAL BANKS-- STOCK ASSESSMENT-- EXECUTOR'S LIABILITY.

An executor who receives certificates of national bank stock as part of the assets of decedent's estate, and includes them in his inventory returned to the probate court, is a shareholder, and liable as such for an assessment, under Rev St. Sec. 5151, subject to the relief granted by section 5152.

Edward Avery, for plaintiff in error.

George E. Smith, for defendant in error.

Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and NELSON, District Judge.

PUTNAM Circuit Judge.

David Parker, the testator of the defendant below, not plaintiff in error, died February 22, 1887, and the defendant was qualified as coexecutor of his will, March or May, 1887. Prior to and at his decease David Parker was the unquestioned owner of 50 shares of the capital stock of the First National Bank of Wilmington. At his death the bank was solvent. The certificate of stock came into the hand of the executors, and the shares were included in their inventory of his estate which was returned to the probate court. They thus accepted them, and by the common law, which prevails in the jurisdiction where they were so qualified, they were thus vested with the legal title to the stock. Subsequently the coexecutor of the defendant below deceased, leaving him sole surviving executor. In November, 1891, the bank became solvent. December 21, 1891, the comptroller of the currency appointed the plaintiff below its receiver, and May 6, 1892 he ordered the assessment in controversy here. This assessment was for the full par of the stock, so in no event can the jurisdiction at law be properly questioned.

Under the circumstances, the defendant below became in law the owner of the stock, although he held it in his capacity as executor, and was holden to account for it as such. He thus became a shareholder, and liable, as such, under section 5151 of the Revised Statutes. Under these circumstances no questions of survivorship of actions or of limitation arise and the circuit court properly entered judgment against him. The provisions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Heiden v. Cremin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 20, 1933
    ...127 F. 468 (C. C. Mass.), is not really in point although there are expressions to the effect contended by appellant. Parker v. Robinson, 71 F. 256 (C. C. A. 1), is in point. The opinion is short; made up of declarations and with no reasons stated for the rules declared. No good reasons cou......
  • Fooks' Ex'rs v. Ghingher
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1937
    ... ... Tillinghast ... (Ohio 1900) 99 F. 801, 40 C.C.A. 93, affirming (C.C.1897) 86 ... F. 46; Parker v. Robinson (Mass.1895) 71 F. 256, 18 ... C.C.A. 36; Casey v. Galli (1876) 94 U.S. 673, 24 ... ...
  • Allender v. Ghingher
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • February 19, 1936
    ... ... was made by Judge Offutt, speaking for this court, in ... Robinson v. Hospelhorn, 179 A. 515, 521: "The ... cases in which the nature of such a liability have been ... Tillinghast ... (Ohio 1900) 99 F. 801, 40 C.C.A. 93, affirming (C.C.1997) 86 ... F. 46; Parker v. Robinson (Mass.1895) 71 F. 256, 18 ... C.C.A. 36; Casey v. Galli (1876) 94 U.S. 673, 24 ... ...
  • Fooks' Ex'rs. v. Ghingher
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1937
    ...(C.C.Cal.1891) 46 F. 354; Bailey v. Tillinghast (Ohio 1900) 99 F. 801, 40 C.C.A. 93, affirming (C.C.1897) 86 F. 46; Parker v. Robinson (Mass.1895) 71 F. 256, 18 C.C.A. 36; Casey v. Galli (1876) 94 U.S. 673, 24 L.Ed. 168; Zimmerman v. Carpenter (C.C.S.D.1898) 84 F. 747; Rankin v. Miller (D.C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT