The Merch.S' v. The Tr.S Of Masonic Hall
Citation | 63 Ga. 549 |
Parties | The Merchants' and Planters' National Bank et al. v. The Trustees of Masonic Hall. |
Decision Date | 30 September 1879 |
Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]
Banks. Equity. Jurisdiction. United States Courts. Injunction. Before Judge Pottle. Richmond County. At Chambers. May 1, 1879.
The Trustees of Masonic Hall obtained a judgment on June 17th, 1878, against the Merchants' etc Bank, founded on a suit brought January 18th, 1876. Execution issued and a return of nulla bona was made. The bank had gone into liquidation and the president refused to point out assets for levy. Plaintiffs then filed this bill for the purpose of reaching assets which were in the hands of the cashier and president, and which it alleged they were collusively disposing of, and dividing out among the stockholders, in fraud of complainants' judgment, which they refused to pay. They were made parties defendant.
Defendants (denying fraud, etc.,) showed for cause why injunction should not be granted and a receiver appointed, thefollowing, among other reasons:
*(1.) That the bank had gone into liquidation in 1875, before the commencement of the suit, closed its connection with the treasurer of the United States, shut its doors, and ceased actual business.
(2.) That if it was still a corporation this was not the proper remedy against it.
(3.) That a bill had been filed by one of the stockholders in the circuit court of the United States setting out the common law judgment of complainants, and paying the appointment of areceiver. This suit, respondents contended, prevented the state court from appointing its receiver for the same property, as complainants could enter that suit and assert their rights.
The court granted the prayer for injunction and receiver, and defendants excepted.
For the other facts see the opinion.
J. C. C. Black; Barnes & Cumming, for plaintiffs in error.
J. S. & W. T. Davidson; Hook & Webb; Jos. Ganahl, for defendants.
1. The return of nulla bona was made by the sheriff upon the execution issued in favor of the Masonic Hall against the Merchants' and Planters' National Bank, and thereupon the plaintiffs in execution filed a bill invoking the grant of injunction to restrain the further distribution of the assets *of this bank among the creditors and stockholders, and the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the assets and keep them in safety to answer a decree to subject them to the payment of the judgment. The chancellor granted the injunction and appointed the receiver, and error is assigned upon his judgment and interlocutory order therein.
We are unable to discover the error. The bank is no longer an agent of the United States. It has gone into liquidation. It has no ostensible property on which a levy can be made; its president declines and refuses to point out any property whereon the common law ft. fa. can be levied; he openly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corbett v. Lincoln Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...... [223 Mo.App. 339] National Bank v. The Trustees of. Masonic Hall, 63 Ga. 549; Watkins v. National. Bank, 51 Kan. 254, 32 P. 914; ......
-
Liggett v. Glenn
...interfere or undertake to interfere with the possession of the receiver. High, Rec. Sec. 50; Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 335, 345; Bank v. Masonic Hall, 63 Ga. 549; Heidritter Oil-Cloth Co., 112 U.S. 304, 305, 5 S.Ct. 135; Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 278; Heath v. Railway Co., 83 Mo. 617; The......
-
Corbett v. Lincoln Sav. And Loan Assn.
...Irons v. Manufacturers' National Bank, Fed Cas. 7068; Cogswell v. Second National Bank, 76 Conn. 252; The Merchants' and Planters' National Bank v. The Trustees of Masonic Hall, 63 Ga. 549; Watkins v. National Bank, 51 Kan. 254; Elwood v. Greenleaf First National Bank, 41 Kan. 475; Koch v. ......
-
J. B. Withers Cigar Co. v. Kirkpatrick
......128; Merchants'. & Planters' Nat. Bank v. Trustees of Masonic Hall, 63. Ga. 549(2), 552; Patterson v. Veasey, D.C., 295 F. 163, 165, ......