Kimball v. Dunn

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Kimball v. Dunn

89 F. 782, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3118

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedOctober 31, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 89 F. 782 (Kimball v. Dunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kimball v. Dunn, 89 F. 782, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3118 (circtsdny 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The statutes provide for the appointment of a receiver of a national bank. Rev. St. U. S. § 5234. But it appears that in the cause at bar no receiver has yet been appointed. I am unable to assent to the proposition that because the comptroller of the currency, in conformity to the provision of section 5240, has appointed plaintiff as a suitable person to make an examination of the affairs of the bank, plaintiff thereby'’ became a temporary receiver. Until the comptroller decides to put the bank into the hands of a receiver, under section 5234, there is nothing in the statutes to support the contention that its tangible assets are exempt from levy under execution upon final judgment. Section 5242, by its terms, applies apparently only to “attachment, injunction, and execution * * * before final judgment.” Motion denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The statutes provide for the appointment of a receiver of a national bank. Rev. St. U. S. § 5234. But it appears that in the cause at bar no receiver has yet been appointed. I am unable to assent to the proposition that because the comptroller of the currency, in conformity to the provision of section 5240, has appointed plaintiff as a suitable person to make an examination of the affairs of the bank, plaintiff thereby'’ became a temporary receiver. Until the comptroller decides to put the bank into the hands of a receiver, under section 5234, there is nothing in the statutes to support the contention that its tangible assets are exempt from levy under execution upon final judgment. Section 5242, by its terms, applies apparently only to “attachment, injunction, and execution * * * before final judgment.” Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F. 782, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimball-v-dunn-circtsdny-1898.