Stanley Matthews

Name: Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court
Author: Stanley Matthews

Summary

“Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Stanley Matthews. It explores elements such as comptroller, stockholders and increase.

Quotes from Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court (Stanley Matthews)

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ The second ground of defense to the action at law is, in our opinion, equally untenable. The assessment imposed upon the stockholders by their own vote, for the purpose of restoring their lost capital, as a consideration for the privilege of continuing business, and to avoid liquidation under section 5205 of the Revised Statutes, is not the assessment contemplated by section 5151, by which the shareholders of every national banking association may be compelled to discharge their individual responsibility for the contracts, debts, and engagements of the association. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ By vote of the directors, and the approval of the comptroller of the currency, the bank will reopen for business on Saturday, the 18th. Every effort has been made to put the bank again into a sound and solvent condition, and the stockholders have been called upon to pay an assessment of 100 per cent. on their stock, thus making the depositors' balances secure and available. The bank will be run on strict business principles and in the interest of its customers and stockholders, and, while thanking you for past favors, we solicit your confidence and support for the future. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ But without insisting upon that point, or deciding it, we think that the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff in error amounts to a ratification, on his part, of the action of the association, and of the comptroller of the currency, in fixing the amount of the increased stock at the less sum. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ The hazard of failure must be presumed to have been in the contemplation of the stockholders when they consented to the risk, and the consequences of failure cannot now be shifted from themselves to their creditors. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ As appellant in the suit in equity, Delano alleges, as ground for reversing the decree dismissing his bill, that the contribution made by him on January 23, 1882, of an amount equal to the par value of the stock held by him to wards a fund which was actually used in the payment of the debts of the bank, the bank then being insolvent, constituted in equity a satisfaction and extinguishment of his liability as a stockholder for the debts of the bank, if not at law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff in error that no increase of the capital stock of the bank was ever proposed by the directors, or assented to by the subscribers, except an increase of the full sum of $500,000; that no such increase as that was ever fully paid in, as required by the statute, and that no such increase was approved by the certificate of the comptroller of the currency ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ The first question to be considered is whether there was a valid increase of the capital stock of the Pacific National Bank, of which the plaintiff in error became the owner of 30 shares, so as to be charged with liability thereon as a stockholder. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ The obligations of the shareholders under the two sections are entirely diverse, and payments made under section 5205 cannot be applied to the satisfaction of the individual responsibility secured by section 5151. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court

“ During the period between March 18, 1882, and May 20, 1882, while the bank was carrying on business in its own name, the amount due depositors was reduced from $4,101,365.91 on the former date, to $2,052,957.82 on the latter, $62,693.40 being due to new depositors. The amount of deposits made between the dates named was $2,338,617.21. New liabilities were contracted subsequent to March 18, 1882, amounting to $200,000, including the $62,693.40 due to new depositors. ”

Stanley Matthews

Summary

Quotes from Delano v. Butler — Opinion of the Court (Stanley Matthews)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature