§

Clifton City Bank v. Comm'r

6 B.T.A. 643 (B.T.A. 1927)
Clifton City Bank v. Comm'r

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re Chetwood, Petitioner

    165 U.S. 443 (1897)   Cited 137 times
    In Ex parte Chetwood, 165 U.S. 443, 17 S. Ct. 385, 41 L. Ed. 782, it was held that the receiver of an insolvent national bank is not the officer of any court, but is the agent and officer of the United States, and that while under section 5234, when he deems it desirable to sell or compound bad or doubtful debts, it devolves upon him to procure the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, nevertheless, the funds collected are disbursed by the Comptroller as in the instance of other collections.

  2. Bushnell v. Leland

    164 U.S. 684 (1897)   Cited 95 times
    Rejecting the argument that "empowering [the comptroller] either to appoint a receiver or to make a ratable call upon the stockholders, is tantamount to vesting that officer with judicial power, in violation of the constitution"

  3. State Savings Etc. Bank v. Anderson

    165 Cal. 437 (Cal. 1913)   Cited 37 times
    In State Savings and Commercial Bank v. Anderson (1913), 165 Cal. 437, 132 P. 756, the State seized the property and business of a bank, and it was contended such seizure denied the bank due process.

  4. Matter of Union Bank

    204 N.Y. 313 (N.Y. 1912)   Cited 34 times
    In Matter of Union Bank of Brooklyn (204 N.Y. 313, 316) Judge WERNER, construing the act of 1908, wrote: "The events which led to its enactment are familiar history of which we may take judicial notice.

  5. Montgomery v. Chemical Nat. Bank of New York

    96 So. 898 (Ala. 1923)   Cited 11 times

    3 Div. 601. June 7, 1923. Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones, Judge. Steiner, Crum Weil and Horace Stringfellow, all of Montgomery, for appellant. When appellee, by the release of its indebtedness, made good impairment in the capital of the bank, its act was final and irrevocable. Wright v. Gurley, 133 La. 745, 63 So. 310. The bill was defective in failing to show what agent of the bank made the alleged misrepresentations. Pinkston v. Boykin, 130 Ala. 483, 30 So. 398; National

  6. Tourtelot v. Booker

    160 S.W. 293 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913)   Cited 20 times

    June 26, 1913. On Rehearing, November 6, 1913. Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; A. M. Walthall, Judge. Action by E. C. Tourtelot and others against L. E. Booker. Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. McBroom Scott, of El Paso, for appellants. Turney Burges, T. A. Falvey, and Stanton Weeks, all of El Paso, for appellee. McKENZIE, J. Appellants E. C. Tourtelot and T. D. Hogan filed this suit on the 21st day of September, 1911, in the district court of El Paso county

  7. Matter of Union Bank of Brooklyn

    96 Misc. 299 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1916)   Cited 7 times

    July, 1916. Joseph G. Deane, for petitioner. John MacCrate and Forrest S. Chilton (Louis Gold stein, of counsel), for Depositors' Committee of the Union Bank. BENEDICT, J. The petitioner prays that "an order may be made herein authorizing and directing him to declare and pay out of the funds of the Union Bank of Brooklyn, now in his possession available for such purpose, a dividend of five per centum upon the claims allowed, less any offsets which may be claimed or ascertained against any of such

  8. Schofield v. Baker

    212 F. 504 (W.D. Wash. 1914)   Cited 4 times

    212 F. 504 (W.D.Wash. 1914) SCHOFIELD v. BAKER et al. No. 1. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division. March, 1914 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Bausman & Kelleher, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff. B. S. Grosscup and W. C. Morrow, both of Tacoma, Wash., and Corwin S. Shank and H. C. Belt, both of Seattle, Wash., for defendants. NETERER, District Judge (after stating the facts as above). The defendants contend, first, that the preference right