71092471505 7109247
routing
71-09248ac3fd6d48a23160None
Click image to open full size in new tab
DV Untied PT688 TOCSIN, Ind., Feb. 1.-Eighty creditors of the bank of Tocsin, a private institution, which was closed in 1925, sued stockholders today for payment of balance of claims. Only 50.12 per cent of total claims of $133,146.08 have been paid, it was said. The receiver has assets now to pay only 5 per cent more, according to an announcement.
Click image to open full size in new tab
STOCKHOLDERS LIABLE COURT DECISION BLUFFTON, Ind., April 26. Stockholders of the Defunct Bank of Tocsin which was organized private bank and which suspended business on May 12, 1925, were held liable individually and collectively for the full amount of due deposits an important decision handed down in the Wells county circiut here today by special Judge Lett of Marion, Ind. Judge Lett presided over the suit brought by of Toscin, depositor the defunct bank, against the bank's for judgment for $900 still due him his deposit in bank. The has paid only cents on the dollars to its In decision Judge Lett stockholders the bank were partners in the banking institution. angle the an fort make stockholders who posed of their stock previous to closing the bank liable that the bank was insolvent the time the stock transfer. court held in substance that former held liable only in the event of proof the of the bank time such stock transfer. such proof was attempted case and effect of court's finding today was against the record the time of the bank's suspension.
Stockholders in a private bank are liable as a group for the full amount of their total stock rather than each being liable individually for his amount of the stock as in the case of incorporated banks, the supreme court held Friday. The case was that in which Grover Essner, receiver for the Bank of Tocsin, sued stockholders on his own behalf as well as for depositors to recover under stockholders' liability. The Wells circuit court ruled on the private bank basis, but held that each depositor should act individually rather than being a party to the Essner suit. Reversing the latter ruling, the supreme court ordered the case back to the Wells court with a proviso that other depositors can be parties in the action. Judge Walter E. Treanor wrote the decision with Judge David Myers concurring in the decision, but dissenting in part, and with Judge James Hughes not participating.