Farmers Nat. Bank of Durant v. Suther

1 Citing case

  1. Rohr v. Stanton Trust & Savings Bank

    245 P. 947 (Mont. 1926)   Cited 9 times

    The district court having based its ruling, in sustaining the demurrer of the respondent, upon the ground that the defendant was in voluntary liquidation, the question which suggests itself is whether the fact that a bank is in voluntary liquidation under the statute deprives the court of jurisdiction to render a judgment against such bank. We contend that it does not. (See Central Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 104 U.S. 54, 26 L.Ed. 693; Chemical Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Hartfort Deposit Co., 161 U.S. 1, 40 L.Ed. 595, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 430 [see, also, Rose's U.S. Notes]; Merced Bank v. Ivett, 127 Cal. 134, 59 P. 393; Landz v. Fresno Loan Sav. Bank, 125 Cal. 456, 58 P. 63; Merchants' Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Gaslin, 41 Minn. 552, 43 N.W. 483; Farmers Nat. Bank of Durant v. Suther, 28 Okla. 806, 116 P. 173; Pritchard v. ( Barnes) First Nat. Bank of Manitowoc, 101 Wis. 86, 76 N.W. 1106.) A creditor may not maintain an action upon an undisputed claim against a bank in voluntary liquidation.