Taylor v. Terzia, 30745

CourtLouisiana Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtROGERS, J.
Citation171 La. 1040,132 So. 781
Docket Number30745
Decision Date05 January 1931
PartiesTAYLOR, Bank Commissioner of Arkansas, v. TERZIA

132 So. 781

171 La. 1040

TAYLOR, Bank Commissioner of Arkansas,
v.

TERZIA

No. 30745

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 5, 1931


Rehearing Denied March 2, 1931

Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Morehouse; J. T. Shell, Judge.

Action by W. E. Taylor, Bank Commissioner of Arkansas, against F. A. Terzia, Sr. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

R. W. Wilson, of Pine Bluff, Ark., and Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellant.

Mahony, Yocum & Saye, of El Dorado, Ark., and Madison & Madison, of Monroe, for appellee.

OPINION [132 So. 782]

[171 La. 1041] ROGERS, J.

Plaintiff is the bank commissioner of the state of Arkansas. As such commissioner, he brought this suit to recover $ 3,000 from the defendant, representing an assessment on a 100 per cent. liability of the amount of stock held by the defendant in the Citizens' Bank, an insolvent institution, of the city of Pine Bluff. Defendant, a resident of Morehouse parish, state of Louisiana, denied liability on [171 La. 1042] several grounds, and, in addition, specially pleaded the prescriptions of one and three years. After the trial of the case, but before judgment, defendant also filed an exception of no right or cause of action. The court below overruled defendant's peremptory pleas and exception, but on the merits decided in defendant's favor, rejecting plaintiff's demand. Plaintiff appealed, and defendant formally renewed, in writing, his pleas of prescription and exception of no right or cause of action. Plaintiff objected to the filing of the pleas and exception and moved that they be stricken from the records.

Plaintiff alleged, as the basis of his demand, the insolvency of the Citizens' Bank of Pine Bluff, and that, as state bank commissioner, he took charge of the institution for the purpose of liquidation as provided by the laws of Arkansas; that, in order to pay the debts and liquidate the affairs of the bank, he levied an assessment on its stockholders, as he was legally empowered to do, on an amount equal to the par value of the shares held by them; that the assessment levied on defendant was for $ 3,000, representing the par value of the stock owned by him.

The court below rejected plaintiff's demand on the specific ground that under the laws of Arkansas, as proved in the record, no authority is conferred on the state bank commissioner to levy an arbitrary assessment, making full proof of the liability of a stockholder in an insolvent bank; that the stockholders of such an institution are individually responsible only equally and ratably, and not one for another, for all contracts, debts, and engagements of the bank to the amount of the par value of their stock, in addition to the amount invested in such stock; that no showing was made of the resources and liabilities of the Citizens' Bank, so as to fix the amount to be paid by each stock-holder [171 La. 1043] thereof under the statute. We do not find any error in the court's ruling.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Smith v. Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y., No. 21314
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 25, 1960
    ...interpretation of the statute may be determined therefrom. We are not unmindful that the Louisiana Supreme Court in Taylor v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781, 783, 'Counsel for the plaintiff cite two decisions of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which they contend support plaintiff's positi......
  • Delta Equipment & Const. Co. v. Cook, No. 5399
    • United States
    • Louisiana Court of Appeal
    • May 16, 1962
    ...Insurance Company of New York, 120 So.2d 309, wherein our colleagues, despite the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Taylor v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781, predicated upon a stipulation similar to that involved in the case at bar, considered authorities cited in the brief of couns......
  • Mobley v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co, 13,981
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • March 7, 1932
    ...has not been granted to plaintiff under the laws of the state of Georgia. In the recent case of Taylor, Bank Examiner, v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781, 783, our Supreme Court said: "Counsel for the plaintiff cite two decisions of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which they contend suppor......
  • Associates Discount Corp. v. Bogard, No. 41890
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1956
    ...state as well as judicial interpretation of that law must be proven during trial just as any other fact in the case. Taylor v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781; see Sheard v. Green, 219 La. 199, 52 So.2d 714. Moreover, as we have already pointed out, the instant suit has for its primary pu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Smith v. Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y., No. 21314
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 25, 1960
    ...interpretation of the statute may be determined therefrom. We are not unmindful that the Louisiana Supreme Court in Taylor v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781, 783, 'Counsel for the plaintiff cite two decisions of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which they contend support plaintiff's positi......
  • Delta Equipment & Const. Co. v. Cook, No. 5399
    • United States
    • Louisiana Court of Appeal
    • May 16, 1962
    ...Insurance Company of New York, 120 So.2d 309, wherein our colleagues, despite the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Taylor v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781, predicated upon a stipulation similar to that involved in the case at bar, considered authorities cited in the brief of couns......
  • Mobley v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co, 13,981
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • March 7, 1932
    ...has not been granted to plaintiff under the laws of the state of Georgia. In the recent case of Taylor, Bank Examiner, v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781, 783, our Supreme Court said: "Counsel for the plaintiff cite two decisions of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which they contend suppor......
  • Associates Discount Corp. v. Bogard, No. 41890
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1956
    ...state as well as judicial interpretation of that law must be proven during trial just as any other fact in the case. Taylor v. Terzia, 171 La. 1040, 132 So. 781; see Sheard v. Green, 219 La. 199, 52 So.2d 714. Moreover, as we have already pointed out, the instant suit has for its primary pu......
  • 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