First Nat. Bank in Oklahoma City v. Harris

27 F.2d 117, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3345
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 1928
DocketNo. 7876
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 27 F.2d 117 (First Nat. Bank in Oklahoma City v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
First Nat. Bank in Oklahoma City v. Harris, 27 F.2d 117, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3345 (8th Cir. 1928).

Opinions

STONE, Circuit Judge.

This is an action at law by the receiver for the City National Bank of Coalgate, Okl., against the First National Bank in Oklahoma City, to enforce an assessment against the latter as a shareholder in the former bank. From a judgment in favor of the receiver, this writ of error is sued out.

Two contentions are presented here. One of them, which is properly not strongly urged, is that it was ultra vires the defendant to acquire and hold and, therefore, to be an owner of stock in the Coalgate bank. The second is that defendant never, as matter of fact, became the owner of the stock in question.

I. The evidence clearly establishes that if defendant ever.became the owner of this stock, it was through purchase at a foreclosure sale of such stock which it held as collateral for a promissory note which was* in default. There can be no question of the right of a national bank to make or buy a loan secured by stock of another bank pledged as collateral thereto; nor to acquire, by purchase, such stock when sold to satisfy the loan. Germania National Bank v. Case, 99 U. S. 628, 25 L. Ed. 448; Ohio Valley National Bank v. Hulitt, 204 U. S. 162, 27 S. Ct. 179, 51 L. Ed. 423.

II. The serious contention here made concerns the ownership of this stock. If defendant was such owner at the time the Coal-gate bank was adjudged insolvent, it cannot escape the liability for this assessment. To understand and to determine this contention it is necessary to state the material facts. These facts are undisputed and are as follows:

[118]*118In January, 1923, the affairs of the Southwest National Bank of Oklahoma City became involved. As a result thereof, the defendant entered into a contract, which action was approved by the chief national bank examiner of that Federal Reserve district, which is as follows:

“Agreement.
“Whereas, the Southwest National Bank of Oklahoma City and its shareholders by resolutions duly made at a special meeting have sold, transferred and set over unto the First National Bank in Oklahoma City certain properties, more particularly described in a resolution adopted by the shareholders and directors of said Southwest National Bank of even date herewith;
“And whereas, said First National Bank ' as a part of the consideration therefor has agreed to pay certain specified indebtedness due and owing from said Southwest National Bank to various third persons;
“And whereas the amount of the assets so transferred and sold to said First National Bank, as now shown upon the books and accounts of said Southwest National Bank of Oklahoma City are of the sum of $345,-093.62 approximately in excess of the amount of said liabilities;
“And whereas, said First National Bank would not accept a sale and transfer of said assets and would not assume the liabilities in said resolutions' specified because it was estimated that the true and collectible value of said assets so transferred to it and upon which it could realize would be less than the liabilities of said Southwest National Bank which it was by said contract to assume and agree to pay;

“And whereas, said Southwest National Bank has heretofore and at the time of making said sale and transfer of said assets to said First National Bank caused to be paid to it other and additional sums as follows, to wit:

“First, the sum of $25,000.00 paid by the Clearing House of Oklahoma City.
“Second, the sum of $43,300.00 paid as follows and by the following persons:

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

Related

(PC) Robinson v. Willsmore
E.D. California, 2025
Petersen v. Buyard
E.D. California, 2022
(PC) Nguyen v. Givens
E.D. California, 2020
(PC) Brown v. Sagireddy
E.D. California, 2020
(PC) Merriman v. Lowry
E.D. California, 2020
(PC) Eckstrom v. Barker
E.D. California, 2020
(PC) Law v. Austin
E.D. California, 2020
(HC) Barton v. San Joaquin
E.D. California, 2019
(HC) Hatchett v. Clark
E.D. California, 2019
(HC)Fawcett v. C. Koenig
E.D. California, 2019
Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.
136 P.2d 822 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Durkey v. Arndt
46 F. Supp. 256 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1942)
Fourth National Bank v. Smith
44 P.2d 242 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1935)
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank
9 F. Supp. 513 (N.D. Texas, 1935)
City Nat. Bank of Huron, SD v. Fuller
52 F.2d 870 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)
Pufahl v. Fidelity Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City
40 F.2d 25 (Tenth Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 F.2d 117, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-in-oklahoma-city-v-harris-ca8-1928.