Holloway v. . Bank

189 S.E. 789, 211 N.C. 227, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 47
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 24, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 789 (Holloway v. . Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holloway v. . Bank, 189 S.E. 789, 211 N.C. 227, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 47 (N.C. 1937).

Opinion

This action was begun in the Superior Court of Durham County on 22 August, 1935.

The plaintiff is a citizen of the State of North Carolina, and a resident of Durham County in said State.

The defendant is a banking corporation, duly organized and now doing business under and pursuant to the laws of the United States, with its principal place of business in the city of Durham, North Carolina. The defendant began business on 10 January, 1933, its organization having been completed at said date.

In her complaint plaintiff alleges:

"3. That at the time said defendant bank opened for business, to wit: On 10 January, 1933, one George H. Salmon had purchased and paid for and was the owner of 1,378 shares of the capital stock of said defendant bank of the par value of $30.00 per share, and that certificates for all said shares of stock, with the exception of 733 1/3 shares, have been issued by the defendant to the said George H. Salmon, or to his nominees or assignees, but that the defendant has declined to issue to the said George H. Salmon a certificate for the said 733 1/3 shares of stock."

"4. That the said George H. Salmon, for valuable consideration, has sold, transferred, and assigned the said 733 1/3 shares of the capital stock of the defendant bank to the above named plaintiff, together with all rights thereto, and all rights and interests which he has or might have to bring any action for the possession of said shares of stock, or the value thereof, and that plaintiff has made demand on the defendant for a certificate for said 733 1/3 shares of the capital stock of the defendant, or the value thereof, and that the defendant bank has failed and refused to issue to the plaintiff such certificate, although by reason of the assignment of said shares of stock to her by the said George H. Salmon, the plaintiff is now the owner of said 733 1/3 shares of stock, and is justly and legally entitled to a certificate for the same."

"7. That if defendant bank has placed itself in a position where it cannot now deliver a certificate for said 733 1/3 shares of its capital stock to the plaintiff, then and in that event the plaintiff, by reason of the assignment of said shares of stock to her by the said George H. Salmon, is entitled to recover of the defendant the sum of $22,000, the par value of said shares of stock, at the date of the opening of defendant bank for business."

On these allegations the plaintiff prays judgment:

"1. That the defendant be directed to issue to the plaintiff a certificate for 733 1/3 shares of its capital stock; or,

"2. If the defendant has placed itself in a position where it cannot now deliver to the plaintiff a certificate for said shares of its capital *Page 229 stock, that plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of $22,000, together with all dividends which have been declared by the defendant on said shares of stock since the opening of the defendant bank.

"3. That plaintiff recover of the defendant the costs of the action, and that she have such other and further relief as she may be entitled to in the premises."

In his answer the defendant denied that at the date of its opening for business, to wit: 10 January, 1933, George H. Salmon had purchased and paid for and was the owner of the 733 1/3 shares of its capital stock, referred to in the complaint; the defendant admitted that it had declined and refused to issue to the said George H. Salmon a certificate for said shares of stock.

The defendant further denied that the said George H. Salmon had sold, transferred, and assigned the said 733 1/3 shares of its capital stock to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff is now the owner of said shares of stock; the defendant admitted that it had declined and refused to issue to the plaintiff a certificate for said 733 1/3 shares of its capital stock.

The defendant prays judgment that plaintiff recover nothing by her action, and that defendant go hence without day and recover of the plaintiff her costs.

At the trial the evidence for both the plaintiff and the defendant showed the following facts:

On 18 January, 1932, the First National Bank of Durham closed its doors and ceased to do business. The Comptroller of the Currency took possession of said bank and on 19 January, 1932, put in charge of said bank a receiver, who had been duly appointed by him. The said receiver took possession of the assets of the First National Bank of Durham, and held the same subject to the orders of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Some time thereafter George H. Salmon, of New York City, came to the city of Durham and submitted to creditors, depositors, and stockholders of the First National Bank of Durham a plan for its reorganization, which had been approved in its general outlines by the Comptroller of the Currency.

Creditors and depositors of the bank were apprehensive that they would suffer heavy losses by the closing of the bank, and its stockholders were confronted with the probability that they would not only lose their stock, but would also be assessed the par value of their stock, as provided by law, in the event of the insolvency of the bank. At meetings of creditors, depositors, and stockholders the plan submitted to them by George H. Salmon for the reorganization of the First National Bank of Durham was fully discussed and finally approved. In accordance with said plan, a reorganization committee was formed, and George H. Salmon was chosen as manager of said committee. The said George H. *Page 230 Salmon, as manager of the reorganization committee, at once proceeded, with the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency, to perfect said plan.

The plan for the reorganization of the First National Bank of Durham provided for the organization of a new bank, to be known as the Depositors National Bank of Durham, with a capital stock and surplus of $300,000. It was provided in said plan that as soon as the said Depositors National Bank was organized, it should pay to creditors and depositors of the First National Bank of Durham 50 per cent of their claims, in installments, as set out in said plan, and that the assets of the First National Bank of Durham, then in the hands of the receiver of said bank, should be assigned by said receiver to the Depositors National Bank, which should retain a sufficient amount of said assets to reimburse the said bank for sums paid by it on claims of creditors and depositors of the First National Bank of Durham. The remainder of said assets should be assigned and delivered by the Depositors National Bank to liquidating trustees, to be named by said bank, to be held by said liquidating trustees in trust for the creditors and depositors of the First National Bank of Durham. It was further provided in said plan for the reorganization of the First National Bank of Durham that one-half of the capital stock of the Depositors National Bank should be assigned by the subscribers for said capital stock to the liquidating trustees, to be held by said liquidating trustees in trust for the creditors and depositors of the First National Bank of Durham. It was contemplated that by these provisions the amounts remaining due on the claims of creditors and depositors of the First National Bank, after the payment of 50 per cent of said claims by the Depositors National Bank, would ultimately be paid, in whole or in part.

After the plan for the reorganization of the First National Bank of Durham, which was submitted by George H. Salmon to creditors, depositors, and stockholders of said bank, had been approved by the required number of said creditors and depositors, as evidenced by creditors' agreements duly executed by them, George H. Salmon proceeded to secure subscriptions for the capital stock of the Depositors National Bank.

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

Related

Gr&s Atlantic Beach, LLC v. Hull
2013 NCBC 39 (North Carolina Business Court, 2013)
Self-Help Ventures Fund v. Custom Finish, LLC
682 S.E.2d 746 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Gillespie v. DeWitt
280 S.E.2d 736 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Hurst v. West
272 S.E.2d 378 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 S.E. 789, 211 N.C. 227, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-bank-nc-1937.