Articles (Lincoln Journal Star, 1931-07-10) report litigation involving the receiver of the Dunbar State Bank, indicating the bank was in the hands of a receiver (i.e., closed and in receivership). No mention of a depositor run is made. Therefore this is classified as a suspension resulting in closure/receivership.
Events (2)
1.July 10, 1931Other
Newspaper Excerpt
The receiver said he never told them it was forgery. The court says they are estopped from asking relief...
Source
newspapers
2.July 10, 1931Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
denied recovery by the supreme court Friday from the receiver of the Dunbar State bank for the $2,652 they paid him on a note he held.
Source
newspapers
Newspaper Articles (2)
1.July 10, 1931Lincoln Journal StarLincoln, NE
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
COURT CAN'T GIVE RELIEF
Man and Wife Paid Same Debt Twice and All Own Fault.
Monto Lowrey and his wife were denied recovery by the supreme court Friday from the receiver of the Dunbar State bank for the $2,652 they paid him on a note he held. This was the second time they paid the debt. Te first note they signed was sold by the bank to New York bank. At the time they paid the money to the receiver there was some discussion as to their liability on the other note, but the Lowreys claimed that the receiver told them and they claimed in the lawsuit that it was a forgery. Later they were compelled in suit to pay the note held by the eastern bank. The receiver said he never told them it was forgery. The court says they are estopped from asking relief, and invokes the old rule of law that where one of two innocent parties must suffer then the one whose oversight or neglect has made the occurrence of the event possible must suffer rather than the one who is entirely without blame. The two notes were in fact duplicates, given for the same debt, and the court says that caution would have required that before paying the note held by the receiver they should have had the other one forwarded for their examination to ascertain if it were forged.
2.July 10, 1931Lincoln Journal StarLincoln, NE
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
COURT CAN'T GIVE RELIEF
Man and Wife Paid Same Debt Twice and All Own Fault.
Monto Lowrey and his wife were 85 denied recovery by the supreme court Friday from the receiver of the Dunbar State bank for the $2,652 they paid him on note he held. This was the second time Smart modes they paid the debt. Te first note fashionable summer they signed was sold by the bank colortones! to New York bank. At the time they paid the money to the receiver there was some discussion as to their liability on the other 300 MORE SMART BERETS AT LESS 20% note, but the Lowreys claimed that the receiver told them and they claimed in the lawsuit that it was (See Window) GOLD'S-Third Floor a forgery. Later they were compelled in a suit to pay the note held by the eastern bank. The reJuly Clearance of Women's ceiver said he never told them it was forgery. The court says they are estopped from asking relief, and invokes the old rule of law that where one of Summer Footwear two innocent parties must suffer then the one whose oversight or neglect has made the occurrence of the event possible must suffer rather than the one who is entirely without blame. The two notes Formerly 6.95 to 10.50 were in fact duplicates, given for the same debt, and the court says that caution would have required Not all sizes in any that before paying the note held by the receiver they should have style but many the other one forwarded for styles in most sizes their examination to ascertain if Ties Pumps! it were forged.
