Commercial National Bank v. Weinhard

192 U.S. 243, 24 S. Ct. 253, 48 L. Ed. 425, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 1008
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 18, 1904·No. 109, 110·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Day,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case requires the construction of section 5205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States as amended: 3 Comp. Stat. 3495. The section is as follows:

• “Every association which shall have failed to pay up its capital stock, as required by law, and every association whose capital stock shall have become, impaired by losses or otherwise, shall, within three months after receiving notiee thereof from the Comptroller of the Currency, pay the deficiency in the capital stock, by assessment upon the shareholders pro rata for the amount of capital stock held by each; and the Treasurer of the United States-shall withhold the interest upon all bonds held by him in trust for any such association, upon notification from the Comptroller of the Currency, until otherwise notified by him. If any such association shall .fail to pay up its capital stock, and shall refuse to go into liquidation, as *247 provided by law, for three months after receiving notice from the Comptroller, a. receiver may be appointed to close up the business of the association, according to the provisions of .section fifty-two hundred and thirty-four. And provided, That if any shareholder or shareholders of such bank shall neglect or refuse, after three months’ notice, to pay the assessment, as provided in this section, it shall be the duty of the board of directors to cause a sufficient amount of jfche capital stock of such shareholder or shareholders to be sold at public auction (after thirty days’ notice shall be given by posting such notice'of sale in the office of the bank, and by publishing such notice in a newspaper of the city or town in which the bank is located, or in a newspaper published nearest thereto,) to .make good the deficiency, and the balance, if any, shall be returned to such delinquent shareholder or shareholders.”

The assessment in this case was made by the board of directors without any action of thé stockholders of the association, and the defendants in-- error having failed t.o. pay the same upon notice, their stock was sold as directéd in the statute. It is claimed that an assessment by the directors without action of the stockholders was without authority of law and. amounted to a conversion of the stock. This view was sustained in the .Supreme Court of Oregon. The assessment ordered by the Comptroller was for the purpose of restoring the capital of .the bank, and thus enabling it to. continue its business. Ample power is conferred upon the Comptroller for this purpose. His action is in aid of other sections of the law preventing a withdrawal of the capital, or the making of dividends when losses have béen sustained equal to the undivided profits. Sections 5202-5204, Rev. Stat. When the notice' is received from the Comptroller by - the bank under section. 5205, 'the association has no authority to review or gainsay the necessity thereof! That question is .concluded by the action of the Comptroller. . The money to be raised for the continuance of the. business may of may 'not be used in the liquidation of debts. The assessment is entirely different from, that pro *248 vided for in section 5151, calling upon the individual responsibility of shareholders for the. payment of debts. Under the last named section the stockholder is required to. pay such assessments as may be made, -to meet the outstanding obligations of the bank, within the limit of an amount équal to the par value of the stock in addition to the amount invested therein. He has no election of payment, but is required to meet this liability, created by law for the benefit of creditors. Under section 5205 the amount paid is subject to the control of the board of directors in the continued operations of the bank. If the stockholders are to have a voice in making or declining to make the. assessment, they may well hesitate to entrust more capital to the control of a board under whose management it has already been impaired. Certain powers are conferred by law upon the directors.

Section 5136 provides that the association shall have power—

“Sixth. To prescribe, by its board of directors, by-laws not inconsistent' with law, regulating the manner in which its stock shall be transferred, its directors elected or appointed, its officers appointed, its property transferred, its general business conducted, and the privileges granted'to it by law exercised and enjoyed.

“Seventh. To exercise by its board of directors, or duly authorized officers or agents, subject to law, all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to' carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes according to.the provisions of this Title.”

And, again, by section 5145, it is declared that the “affairs” of the corporation “shall be managed by-not less than five directors.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commercial National Bank v. Weinhard, 192 U.S. 243, 24 S. Ct. 253, 48 L. Ed. 425, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 1008 (1904).

192 U.S. 243 (Commercial National Bank v. Weinhard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Bowen
58 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1944)
Meikle v. Export Lumber Co.
67 F.2d 301 (Ninth Circuit, 1933)
Commissioner of Banks v. McKnight
183 N.E. 720 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Smith v. Mobley
143 S.E. 116 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Hereford v. Consolidated Nat. Bk. of Tucson
255 P. 595 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1927)
Brown v. Midland Nat. Bank
268 S.W. 226 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Taylor v. American Nat. Bank
2 F.2d 479 (N.D. Texas, 1924)
Gillett v. Moore
223 P. 21 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1924)
Duke v. Force
208 P. 67 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
First Nat. Bank v. Multnomah State Bank
170 P. 534 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
184 F. 118 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Kentucky, 1910)
Thomas v. Gilbert
101 P. 393 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1909)
George v. Wallace
135 F. 286 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)