State Ex Rel. Walcott v. Muenchmeyer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Ex Rel. Walcott v. Muenchmeyer

1925 OK 874, 240 P. 1038, 113 Okla. 211, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 957

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 27, 1925

Docket15047

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 874 (State Ex Rel. Walcott v. Muenchmeyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Walcott v. Muenchmeyer, 1925 OK 874, 240 P. 1038, 113 Okla. 211, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 957 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PHELPS, J.

The statement of facts, in substance, and the questions of law involved herein are identical with those in the case of State of Oklahoma ex rel. Roy Walcott, State Bank Commissioner, v. C. A. Zoll, No. 15046, this day decided, 113 Okla. 208, 240 Pac. 1035, and the opinion and syllabus of said case are adopted herein, and in addition thereto we affirm that part of the finding and judgment of the trial court that, inasmuch as $4,000 of the purchase price for the bank stock was paid for with certain municipal bonds and which bonds were found _among the assets of the defunct bank, defendant in error be given a preference on his judgment in the sum of $4,000 over the claims of depositors and other creditors of the bank.

The judgment of the trial court is hereby modified, making the balance of the judgment of defendant in error, after giving said $4,000 preference, subject to and to be paid from the assets of said bank only after the-unsecured deposits are paid to depositors in full, and with this modification the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

PHELPS, J.

The statement of facts, in substance, and the questions of law involved herein are identical with those in the case of State of Oklahoma ex rel. Roy Walcott, State Bank Commissioner, v. C. A. Zoll, No. 15046, this day decided, 113 Okla. 208, 240 Pac. 1035, and the opinion and syllabus of said case are adopted herein, and in addition thereto we affirm that part of the finding and judgment of the trial court that, inasmuch as $4,000 of the purchase price for the bank stock was paid for with certain municipal bonds and which bonds were found _among the assets of the defunct bank, defendant in error be given a preference on his judgment in the sum of $4,000 over the claims of depositors and other creditors of the bank.

The judgment of the trial court is hereby modified, making the balance of the judgment of defendant in error, after giving said $4,000 preference, subject to and to be paid from the assets of said bank only after the-unsecured deposits are paid to depositors in full, and with this modification the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 874, 240 P. 1038, 113 Okla. 211, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-walcott-v-muenchmeyer-okla-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack