State v. Bank of Rushville

Citation78 N.W. 281,57 Neb. 608
PartiesSTATE v. BANK OF RUSHVILLE ET AL.
Decision Date09 February 1899
CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.

1. A court appointing a receiver for an insolvent bank may authorize the receiver to settle and compromise a suit instituted by himself in behalf of the estate, where it appears that as large a sum will probably be realized in that way as if the litigation was continued, or it is disclosed that the best interests of the estate require that such settlement be effected.

2. An order of the court giving directions or instructions to a receiver in the performance of his trust will not be disturbed on review, where no abuse of discretion is shown.

Appeal from district court, Sheridan county; Westover, Judge.

Action by the state against the Bank of Rushville. Willis E. Brown filed a claim with the receiver, and, on its disallowance, filed a petition in intervention. From an order granting the receiver leave to compromise a suit against the stockholders, Brown appeals. Affirmed.W. W. Wood and Stewart & Munger, for appellant.

F. T. Ransom, for the State.

NORVAL, J.

The record before us discloses that the Bank of Rushville, incorporated under the laws of this state, became insolvent, and on January 5, 1894, A. P. Brink was appointed the receiver of said bank, who duly qualified as such, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the trust. The receiver converted the assets into money, and the proceeds, under the order of the court, were distributed by him among the several creditors. The assets being insufficient to pay the liabilities of the bank, on application of the receiver the district court ordered him to proceed at once to enforce against the stockholders their constitutional liability for the unpaid indebtedness of the bank. In obedience to said order the receiver instituted suit in the district court of Sheridan county against William May, Elmer Williams, and Arthur Kinney, as stockholders of said bank, by which it was sought to charge said May as the owner of 105 shares of stock, and said Williams and Kinney each for the number of shares owned by them respectively. In said cause May filed an answer admitting his liability to the extent of 26 shares of the capital stock of the bank, and denying all other or further liability. Subsequently the receiver applied to the court, in the proceeding to wind up the affairs of the bank, for an order authorizing him to settle and compromise the suit against the stockholders by taking judgment against May, the only solvent defendant, for the sum of $2,600, and which sum he was to immediately thereafter pay the receiver. One W. E. Brown, a creditor of the Bank of Rushville, resisted the application for authority to settle and compromise the suit pending against the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Neb. Sav. & Exch. Bank
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1901
    ...special officer of and under the orders and direction of the court. “He is the arm of the court,” says Norval, J., in State v. Bank of Rushville, 57 Neb. 608, 78 N. W. 281; and, where there is no abuse of discretion in any action taken in regard to the action of the receiver, this court wil......
  • State v. Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1901
    ... ... the collection and distribution of the assets of the ... insolvent bank. He is, as it were, a special officer of and ... under the orders and direction of the court. "He is the ... arm of the court," says NORVAL, J., in State v. Bank ... of Rushville, 57 Neb. 608, 78 N.W. 281, and where there ... is no abuse of discretion in any action taken in regard to ... the action of the receiver, this court will not on review ... disturb an order thus made. The report of the receiver being ... verified was, we think, prima facie evidence of its ... ...
  • Andrew v. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1928
    ...authority to authorize a compromise. Knaffl v. Knoxville Banking & Trust Co., 139 Tenn. 240, 201 S. W. 775; 7 C. J. 737; State v. Bank, 57 Neb. 608, 78 N. W. 281;State v. Bank, 65 Neb. 416, 91 N. W. 414. See Sherman v. Linderson (Iowa) 215 N. W. 501. It is for the applicants who are attacki......
  • Andrew v. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank, Washington
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1928
    ... ... which might reasonably be expected to be recoverable ...          The ... court had undoubted authority to authorize a compromise ... Knaffl v. Knoxville Bank & Tr. Co. , 139 Tenn. 240 ... (201 S.W. 775); 7 Corpus Juris 737; State v. Bank of ... Rushville , 57 Neb. 608 (78 N.W. 281); State v ... German Sav. Bank , 65 Neb. 416 (91 N.W. 414). See ... Sherman v. Linderson , 204 Iowa 532, 215 N.W. 501. It ... is for the applicants, who are attacking it, to show good ... cause to set the settlement aside. The court should be slow ... to renounce ... ...
  • 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