Thompson v. Loan Association

4 Citing cases

  1. Trust Co. v. Hudson

    200 N.C. 688 (N.C. 1931)   Cited 7 times

    It was held in Strauss v. Building Loan Asso., 117 N.C. 308, 23 S.E. 450 (decided in 1895), on rehearing, 118 N.C. 556, 24 S.E. 116 (decided in 1896), that receiver of an insolvent building and loan association, in the absence of an order of court, was not authorized to foreclose a mortgage made to the corporation in which the corporation alone was empowered to foreclose by sale. This was subsequently approved in Thompson v. Loan Asso., 120 N.C. 420, 27 S.E. 118 (decided in 1897). But the Legislature, thereafter, at its regular session, 1901, amended the law, and specifically clothed receivers of corporations with the power and authority to "foreclose mortgages, deeds of trust, and other liens executed to the corporation," now C. S., 1209; and further provided in the same act, ch. 2, Public Laws 1901, now C. S., 1210, that "all of the real and personal property of an insolvent corporation, wheresoever situated, and all of its franchises, rights, privileges and effects, upon the appointment of a receiver, forthwith vest in him, and the corporation is divested of the title thereto."

  2. B. and L. Association v. Blalock

    76 S.E. 532 (N.C. 1912)   Cited 5 times

    We cannot discuss this proposition. It has so recently been discussed and decided by this Court that we will only refer to these cases: Strauss v. B. L. Association, 117 N.C. 308; s. c., 118 N.C. 556; Thompson v. B. L. Asso., 120 N.C. 420. These cases seem to settle the question raised by the petition, especially the last case cited, where the very question is discussed.

  3. Meares v. Duncan

    31 S.E. 476 (N.C. 1898)   Cited 7 times
    In Meares v. Duncan, 123 N.C. 203, it was held: "A married woman who becomes a stockholder in a building and loan association, and also a borrower, must contribute pro rata to the expense and loss account in case of failure, just as she would have participated in the profits if it had been a success.

    As the expenses and losses had to be paid out of the assets of the concern, and they have been ascertained to be 30 per cent thereof, and her note being a part of the assets, and this expense and deficiency having first to be paid, she can claim no credits on her bond until this is paid. So, she has not, in legal contemplation paid this 30 per cent on her debt, but paid it to the concern, which went to the expense and loss account; and therefore she is not entitled to have it credited on her bond. This matter has been very much discussed in Strauss v. B. L. A., 117 N.C. 308; 118 N.C. 556; Thomas v. B. L. A., 120 N.C. 420; Meares v. Davis, 121 N.C. 126, and we think the principle involved in this case is settled by those cases. (206) In our opinion the defendant Emily F. Duncan, as well as her husband, is liable to the plaintiffs for $651.56 and interest, and judgment should have been entered for that amount.

  4. Meares v. Davis

    28 S.E. 188 (N.C. 1897)   Cited 3 times
    In Meares v. Davis, 121 N.C. 126, the defendants, borrowing stockholders in an insolvent association, moved the court for an order to require the receivers to pay them $382.27, proceeds derived from a sale of their property.

    We cannot discuss this proposition. It has so recently been discussed and decided by this Court that we will only refer to these cases — Strauss v. B. and L. Assn., 117 N.C. 308; s.c., 118 N.C. 556; Thompson v. B. and L. Assn., 120 N.C. 420. These cases seem to settle the question raised by the petition, especially the last case cited, where the very question is discussed.