Gormley v. Searcy

188 S.E. 65, 54 Ga. App. 372, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 584
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 19, 1936
Docket24453
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 S.E. 65 (Gormley v. Searcy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gormley v. Searcy, 188 S.E. 65, 54 Ga. App. 372, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

Sutton, J.

“1. Where tlie special legislative charter of a bank which was granted on October 26, 1870, for a period of thirty years, and provided that the ‘individual property of the stockholder at the time of suit shall be liable for the ultimate payment of the debts of the company in proportion to the amount of stock owned by each stockholder’ (Ga. L. 1870, pp. 114, 115), was renewed by the secretary of State on October 24, 1900, in accordance with the laws of force at that time providing for the renewal of special legislative charters theretofore granted to banking companies (Ga. L. 1893, p. 88; Code of 1910, §§ 2193, 2194, 2195), with the same corporate powers and privileges as set out in the original act of incorporation, ‘for the space of 30 years, as to all parts thereof not in conflict with the constitution and laws now or hereafter of force in this State,’ the original provisions of such special charter as to the liability of its stockholders were not retained after such renewal, for the reason that the provisions of the special charter as to stockholders’ liability were in conflict with the general law of force at that time (Acts 1893, p. 72 et seq.; Code of 1910, § 2270), and by the renewal of such charter the provisions of the existing general laws as to stockholders were adopted.

“2. Where a bank chartered by special legislative act in 1870 for thirty years (Acts 1870, p. 114) renewed its charter in March, 1900, for thirty years, as provided by the act of 1893 (Ga. L. 1893, p. 88; Code of 1910, §§ 2193 et seq.), authorizing the renewal of special bank charters, and again renewed its charter before its expiration in 1930, under existing laws providing for a renewal of special charters granted to banks by the General Assembly or by the secretary of State (Acts 1919, pp. 135, 172, 173, 174; Code of 1933, §§ 13-1101, 13-1106),’ such bank by thus renewing its charter in 1930 adopted the provisions of the banking act of 1919, supra, as to the liability of stockholders.” Gormley v. Searcy, 182 Ga. 675 (186 S. E. 737).

[373]*373Decided October 19, 1936. D. M. Parker, assistant attorney-general, J. W. Culpepper, N. F. Culpepper, Park & Strozier, for plaintiff. Beck, Goodrich ■& Beck, Crenshaw & FLansell, Jones, Johnston, Russell & Sparks, Ryals, Anderson & Anderson, for defendant.

3. Under the rulings of the Supreme Court in answer to the questions certified by this court, the judge did not. err in overruling the demurrer of the superintendent of banks to the affidavit of illegality, and in entering judgment in favor of the defendant in execution.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Related

Gormley v. Hart
188 S.E. 66 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 S.E. 65, 54 Ga. App. 372, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gormley-v-searcy-gactapp-1936.