Mobley v. Bank of Mount Dora

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mobley v. Bank of Mount Dora

152 S.E. 101, 170 Ga. 175, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 415

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 21, 1930·No. No. 7222·Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

This case falls within the principle ruled in Citizens Bank of Waynesboro v. Mobley, 163 Ga. 543, which was followed in Bank of Dania v. Farmers & Traders Bank, 169 Ga. 846 (151 S. E. 803).

(a) Accordingly, under the facts of the case as fully set forth in the statement of facts, the transaction was not a “deposit” with the Bank of Stockbridge, as contemplated by the General Assembly in providing that shareholders in banks may be assessed for the payment of depositors.

(b) The plaintiff is entitled to participate in the general assets of the Bank of Stockbridge, its claim ranking as a contractual liability under subsection 5 of section 19 of the act of 1925 (Ga. L. 1925, pp. 119, 129; 12 Park’s Code Supp. 1926, § 2268 (s) ; Michie’s Code, § 2366(70) ; but the plaintiff is not entitled, in virtue of such claim, to participate in the distribution of any amounts .collected by assessment against the stockholders of the Bank of Stockbridge.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices eoneur. Orville A. Park and Carl N. Davie, for plaintiff in error. Sail, Giice & Bloch, Robert S. Jones Jr., Austin & Boykin, and P. O. Ilolliday, contra.

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

Hill, J.

This case falls within the principle ruled in Citizens Bank of Waynesboro v. Mobley, 163 Ga. 543, which was followed in Bank of Dania v. Farmers & Traders Bank, 169 Ga. 846 (151 S. E. 803).

(a) Accordingly, under the facts of the case as fully set forth in the statement of facts, the transaction was not a “deposit” with the Bank of Stockbridge, as contemplated by the General Assembly in providing that shareholders in banks may be assessed for the payment of depositors.

(b) The plaintiff is entitled to participate in the general assets of the Bank of Stockbridge, its claim ranking as a contractual liability under subsection 5 of section 19 of the act of 1925 (Ga. L. 1925, pp. 119, 129; 12 Park’s Code Supp. 1926, § 2268 (s) ; Michie’s Code, § 2366(70) ; but the plaintiff is not entitled, in virtue of such claim, to participate in the distribution of any amounts .collected by assessment against the stockholders of the Bank of Stockbridge.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices eoneur. Orville A. Park and Carl N. Davie, for plaintiff in error. Sail, Giice & Bloch, Robert S. Jones Jr., Austin & Boykin, and P. O. Ilolliday, contra.

Mobley v. Bank of Mount Dora, 152 S.E. 101, 170 Ga. 175, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 415 (Ga. 1930).

Pincite

152 S.E. 101 (Mobley v. Bank of Mount Dora) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related