Swicord v. Crawford

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Swicord v. Crawford

92 S.E. 394, 20 Ga. App. 35, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 696

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1917

Docket7787

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 394 (Swicord v. Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Swicord v. Crawford, 92 S.E. 394, 20 Ga. App. 35, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 696 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoyles, P. J.

1. The provisions of section 2270 of the Civil Code of 1910, in reference to the individual liability of stockholders of an incorporated bank to depositors thereof, are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. This liability not arising under the common law, the statute is to be strictly construed against its imposition, unless it is clearly included by the words therein. When the section is thus construed, it is clear that the word “stockholder,” as used therein, means a stockholder who became such by subscribing to the stock of the corporation, and that it does not include a stockholder who became such by purchasing, or otherwise acquiring, stock from other stockholders. If this construction is correct, it follows that only those stockholders who acquired their stock from the bank itself are individually liable to depositors of the bank. See, as to the principle involved, Reid v. DeJarnette, 123 Ga. 787, 793 (51 S. E. 770, 3 Ann. Cas. 1117); Reid v. Jones, 127 Ga. 114, 116 (56 S. E. 128) ; Brunswick Terminal Co. v. National Bank of Baltimore, 192 U. S. 386 (24 Sup. Ct. 314, 48 L. ed. 491).

(a) Sections 2247 and 2248 of the Civil Code of 1910 have no material bearing on this question. Wheatley v. Glover, 125 Ga. 710 (54 S. E. 626) ; Brunswick Terminal Co. v. National Bank, supra.

2. This was a suit by the receivers of an insolvent bank against a stockholder on his statutory liability to depositors, and the petition, not alleging that the defendant belonged to that class of stockholders who acquired their stock from the bank itself, should have been dismissed on general demurrer. Reid v. Jones, supra.

3. The error in the judgment upon the demurrer rendered the further proceedings nugatory, and the other assignments of error will not be considered.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Beoyles, P. J.

1. The provisions of section 2270 of the Civil Code of 1910, in reference to the individual liability of stockholders of an incorporated bank to depositors thereof, are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. This liability not arising under the common law, the statute is to be strictly construed against its imposition, unless it is clearly included by the words therein. When the section is thus construed, it is clear that the word “stockholder,” as used therein, means a stockholder who became such by subscribing to the stock of the corporation, and that it does not include a stockholder who became such by purchasing, or otherwise acquiring, stock from other stockholders. If this construction is correct, it follows that only those stockholders who acquired their stock from the bank itself are individually liable to depositors of the bank. See, as to the principle involved, Reid v. DeJarnette, 123 Ga. 787, 793 (51 S. E. 770, 3 Ann. Cas. 1117); Reid v. Jones, 127 Ga. 114, 116 (56 S. E. 128) ; Brunswick Terminal Co. v. National Bank of Baltimore, 192 U. S. 386 (24 Sup. Ct. 314, 48 L. ed. 491).

(a) Sections 2247 and 2248 of the Civil Code of 1910 have no material bearing on this question. Wheatley v. Glover, 125 Ga. 710 (54 S. E. 626) ; Brunswick Terminal Co. v. National Bank, supra.

2. This was a suit by the receivers of an insolvent bank against a stockholder on his statutory liability to depositors, and the petition, not alleging that the defendant belonged to that class of stockholders who acquired their stock from the bank itself, should have been dismissed on general demurrer. Reid v. Jones, supra.

3. The error in the judgment upon the demurrer rendered the further proceedings nugatory, and the other assignments of error will not be considered.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 394, 20 Ga. App. 35, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swicord-v-crawford-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack