Nieman v. Bethlehem Nat. Bank

Third Circuit

Nieman v. Bethlehem Nat. Bank

113 F.2d 717, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3439

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 15, 1940

DocketNo. 7431

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 F.2d 717 (Nieman v. Bethlehem Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nieman v. Bethlehem Nat. Bank, 113 F.2d 717, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3439 (3d Cir. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the conclusion reached by the district court, for the reasons satisfactorily stated in the opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick, 32 F.Supp. 436. We need only add that we see no basis for the defendant’s contention that it is not liable for interest for the period during which the insolvent bank, of which the plaintiff is receiver, was trustee of the defendant estate. The stockholders’ liability represented by the judgment recovered in this case was imposed for the benefit of the creditors of the bank, not of the bank itself. Dunn v. O’Connor, 67 App.D.C. 76, 89 F.2d 820. Consequently the right of the latter to interest from the due date of the assessment (Casey v. Galli, 94 U.S. 673, 24 L.Ed. 168) could not be prejudiced by the alleged neglect of the plaintiff and his predecessor in office to pay the assessment during that oeriod.

. , . The judgment of the, district court is ami med.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the conclusion reached by the district court, for the reasons satisfactorily stated in the opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick, 32 F.Supp. 436. We need only add that we see no basis for the defendant’s contention that it is not liable for interest for the period during which the insolvent bank, of which the plaintiff is receiver, was trustee of the defendant estate. The stockholders’ liability represented by the judgment recovered in this case was imposed for the benefit of the creditors of the bank, not of the bank itself. Dunn v. O’Connor, 67 App.D.C. 76, 89 F.2d 820. Consequently the right of the latter to interest from the due date of the assessment (Casey v. Galli, 94 U.S. 673, 24 L.Ed. 168) could not be prejudiced by the alleged neglect of the plaintiff and his predecessor in office to pay the assessment during that oeriod.

. , . The judgment of the, district court is ami med.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 F.2d 717, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nieman-v-bethlehem-nat-bank-ca3-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack