Scranton City Bank (Scranton, PA)

Episode Information

Episode UID
7150772190988
Episode Type
Suspension → Closure
Bank Type
trust
Bank ID
715077219 hash
Start Date
April 1, 1882*
Location
Scranton, Pennsylvania (41.409, -75.662)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini (chosen from majority vote of a three-model LLM ensemble)
Short Digest
5028878aa3475a57

Response Measures

None

Description

Articles describe the bank's failure long before these reports and subsequent assignee/settlement actions.

Events (3)
1. April 1, 1882* Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
after the bank failed
Source
newspapers
2. November 13, 1900 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
the final account was confirmed finally
Source
newspapers
3. March 19, 1901 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
a supplemental account was yesterday filed and confirmed absolutely
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (7)
1. November 15, 1895 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA
Article from The Scranton Tribune, November 15, 1895

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# JESSUP CASE IS ENDING Charge of Judge McPherson Will Be Made This Morning. # ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY Major Everett Warren Closed Case for Defendants and Attorney S. B. Price, for Plaintiffs-Jury Warned Not to Consider Case Until Judge Speaks. Major Everett Warren made the ar- gument to the jury in the Jessup case and Attorney S. B. Price argued on the side of the plaintiff. Judge McPherson will charge the jury this morning and in speaking to the jury at adjournment and requesting them to be in their places promptly at 9 o'clock this morn- ing, he bade them to not only not speak to any person or among them- selves about the case, or even to con- sider it in their minds until after they hear the charge of the court. Attorney W. J. Tracey was called by the defendant yesterday morning. Ten years ago he was a member of the firm of Hamlin & Tracey, of the Wayne county bar. The Scranton City bank sent to the firm a note to collect drawn by E. M. Lancaster and endorsed by W. J. Keisel. The money was to be collected from Kelsel as Lancaster had failed. Mr. Tracey remembered that the note was not collected because the endorser had no money or property. This is one of the notes that Assignee Gunster has charged to the indebted- ness of Cashier Jessup. Ex-Judge Jessup was recalled in ref- erence to the $10,000 certificate of de- posit of Mr. Beardslee. The latter had a judgment of $10,000 against Mr. Dolph and assigned it to John H. Fel- lows, who gave his check for the same amount to Mr. Jessup as attorney for Mr. Beardslee. The check was placed in the Third National bank and Mr. Beardslee got a certificate of deposit. Ex-Justice Hand was called to the stand in relation to another note. Know Nothing About It. Attorney Merrifield was called in di- rect examination by the defendant. Major Warren handed him a paper signed by Charles Tropp, the substance of which was that Cashier Jessup's in- debtedness had been satisfactorily ar- ranged and that in consequence the directors had entered a nolle prosequi to the action brought against the cash- ier in criminal court for wrecking the bank. Mr. Merrifield did not know anything about the paper. He was shown the assignment of $25,- 000 by Dr. B. H. Throop after the bank failed and said that his impression of the account to which this amount was intended to be put was not to reduce the cashier's indebtedness, but the lia- bility of the directors. The deed of trust for the sale of the coal lands was offered in evidence. The minutes of the bank of April 4, 1882, were then offered in evidence and read to show that the bank had specially em- powered Mr. Jessup to discount any pa- per he considered good, and that the bank was liable for Mr. Jessup's errors of judgment, and therefore that Mr. Jessup's bondsmen should not pay these bad notes. The defendants rested and the plain- tiffs called W. C. Conwell in rebuttal. He testified that Dr. Throop was a large depositor of the Scranton City bank, and that it was mutually ar- ranged between the doctor and the other directors that he would pay in $25,000 to help square up accounts with the depositors, and that this money would be regarded as relieving him from any further liability as a director of the bank. Paper That He Signed. The witness was a member of the depositors' committee of the bank, and he said he did not sign any paper to the effect that the affairs of Cashier Jessup were satisfactorily arranged. He signed a paper agreeing to release the cashier from liability to criminal pros- ecution for wrecking the bank, but he did not think that such a paper was a waiver of all debts and liabilities of Mr. Jessup or his bondsmen to the bank. Assignee Gunster was the last wit- ness heard, and when his testimony re- lating to certain accounts in the books, was heard the case closed and the at- torneys prepared to argue law points. In the afternoon the arguments to the jury began. Major Warren's argument to the jury was an exhaustive review of the evi- dence and the law applying to the lia- bility of debtors in cases similar to the one tried. He maintained that the defendants had proven that Mr. Jes- sup's indebtedness to the bank had been all satisfactorily arranged, and that no further liabilities exist for which the bondsmen are responsible. According to the assignee the in- debtedness of the bank when it failed was $140,000. Of this amount there had been raised from the sale of Mr. Jes- sup's coal lands, $73,000. The money which Dr. Throop set aside in the $25,- 000 from his deposits in the bank for the benefit of the depositors was that much off the liabilities of the cashier. Major Warren summed up the various amounts that were applied from time to time on the liabilities of the cashier and showed that more than $140,000 had been raised and that there now exists no such disparity as $38,000 yet to be accounted for. Argument for the Plaintiff. Attorney Price's argument for the plaintiff was no less comprehensive than that of the defendants' counsel, and it covered every detall of the case. It was devoid of any attempt to work on the minds of the jurors, but was a logical and convincing presentation of the evidence. He maintained that the defendants are responsible for the mak- ing good of $38,000 due on the indebted- ness of Cashier Jessup to the bank and that the $25,000 assigned by Dr. Throop from his deposits was not a part of the contribution to the wiping out of the cashier's llability to the bank.

2. February 7, 1899 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA
Article from The Scranton Tribune, February 7, 1899

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

SUPREME COURT LIST. Lackawanna Cases That Will Be Argued at Philadelphia During Week Beginning Monday, February 20. Prothonotary John Copeland has recelved from the prothonotary of the supreme court the trial list containing the Lackawanna county cases that will be argued at Philadelphia during the week beginning Monday, Feb. 20. The list is as follows: Hartley, appellant, VS. Hull and others. Von Storch vs. Von Storch, appellant. John Church Co. vs. Guernsey and others, appellants. Creighton and others VS. Scranton Lace Curtain Manufacturing company. (Blythe and others. appellants). Creighton and others vs. Seranton Lace Curtain Manufacturing company. (Chappell, appellant). Blythe and others, appellants, vs. Scranton Lace Curtain Manufacturing company. Commonwealth, ex rel District Attorney Jones VS. Shires and others; board of control. of Scranton. appellant. Cokely and others vs. Sterling Cycle works, appellant. OMalley vs. Seranton Traction company. appellant. In re first and final account of Wells, trustee; Hoebuly, appellant. Felts, appellant, vs. Delaware Lackawann and Western Railroad company. Madigan VS. Williams, appellant. Kingsley vs. Taylor, appellant. Williams, appellant, VS. Crystal Lake Water company. Watkins. assigned to Williams vs. Moore, administratrix appellant. In re petition of Nichols-Nichols. appellant. Morris and Essex Mutual Coal company, appellant, vs. Delaware, Lackawana and Western Coal Railroad company. Fello WS. appellant. vs. Smith and others. Keator and others VS. Scranton Traction company, appellant. Gunster. assignee of Scranton City bank. appellant, vs. Jessup and others, executors and trustees. Calendar vs. Kelley, assignee of the Olyphant Trust company. appeliant. Commonwealth vs. Keller, appellant. Hillside Coal and Iron company, vs. Haerman and others, appellants. Miller. appellant. vs. Cure and others. Ferdinando vs. City of Seranton and others, appellants. Thayne, appellant, vs. Scranton Traction company. J(ermyn and others, appellants, vs. Frick and others. North End Lumer company, limited, an pellant, vs. O'Donnell. Brown estate-Brown's appeal.

3. July 12, 1900 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA
Article from The Scranton Tribune, July 12, 1900

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# AN APPEAL IS REFUSED. Supreme Court Decides That Richard J. Little Must Serve His Term. Decisions in Other Cases, At Philadelphia yesterday the Su- preme court refused the petition of Richard J. Little, editor of the Scran- tonian, for the allowance of an ap- peal to that body from the decision of the Superior court in his case. Little is now serving a term in the county jail for libelling Colonel E. H. Ripple. This decision means that Little will have to serve out his sentence, which expires Aug. 24. Other decisions handed down at Philadelphia yesterday in Lackawanna county cases were: Von Storch vs Van Storch, C. P. Lackawanna county. Judgment af- firmed. The Olyphant Sewage Drainage company vs. the borough o. Olyphant, et al., C. P. Lackawanna county. De- cree is affirmed at the cost of the ap- pellants. Gunster vs. Jessup, et al., C. P. Lackawanna. Judgment is affirmed. The case of Gunster against Jessup Is the famous one growing out of the failure of the Scranton City bank. This suit was brought to recover up- on a bond given by George A. Jessup, vice-president of the Scranton City bank, dated on or about the 12th of February, 1886. The sureties upon the bond were William H. Jessup, Benja- min H. Throop and Albert Beardsley. William H. Jessup is the surviving obligor. The condition of the bond was that if George A. Jessup should fulfill with integrity and fidelity the trust reposed in him, and faithfully execute the du- ties assigned to him as vice-president, then the obligation be void, otherwise to be of full effect. At the trial of the case Edward Mer- rifield, who was once a director and stockholder of the bank, was called as a witness for the plaintiff. Objection wase made that he was incompetent as to any matters occuring in the life time of Dr. Throop, Albert Beardsley and George A. Jessup, who were then dead, or as to any matters with which they were concerned. It was shown that Mr. Merrifield had released and turned over all his stock to the assignee of the Scranton City bank. It was also shown that there was an agreement of certain directors, including the witness, with a commit- tee of depositors, to pay the depositors in full. It was proved that the con- tract had been complied with and sur- rendered to the directors; there being a receipt upon the back of it of the chairman of the committee of deposi- tors to that effect. It was proved that certain depositors had assigned their deposits to Mr. Merrifield, trustee, for the purpose of showing that he was interested in this suit. This evidence was rebutted by the admission of a written assignment from Mr. Merri- field to Henry Armburst of all his in- terest in deposits. It was shown also that Mr. Merrifield and others, at the time of the failure of the bank, bor- rowed some money from the First Na- tional bank, of Scranton, and gave their note for the purpose of paying depositors. At the time of the trial there was a note at the First National bank of about $8,000, upon which Mr. Merrifield was a maker. The court ruled that the witness was incompetent. The bond had been lost or destroyed, and there was no other witness by whom its execution and contents could be proved except Mr. Merrifield. The charge of the court was as fol- lows: "Gentlemen of the jury, there being no evidence in this case upon which the plaintiff is entitled to re- cover, your verdict will be for the de- fendants." The judgment of the court of this county that the plaintiff was not en- titled to recover is sustained by the Supreme court. The Olyphant Sewage-Drainage com- pany, which was incorporated on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1894, and on the same date by ordinance was granted the right to use the streets of the said borough for the purpose of carrying out its corporate rights and purposes, did not, it was alleged, carry on its work until the seventeenth day of April, 1899, when the officers of the borough of Olyphant prevented the plaintiff company from excavating and laying pipe or using its streets for the purpose of constructing a system of sewers for the said borough. The plain- tiff company then asked for an in- junction restraining the borough of Olyphant and its officials from inter- fering with plaintiff's workmen. After hearing the case, the court made the following order: "Now, therefore, this twenty-first day of Deecmber, 1899, this cause hav- ing been heard at a regular term of equity court and having been duly con- sidered, we order and direct that a permanent injunction issue against the defendants in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff's bill and that the defendants pay the costs of these pro- ceedings." This decision is upheld by the Su- preme court. The Von Storch case is one in which the title to certain lands in North Scranton was in dispute. THE OFFICE.

4. July 18, 1900 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA
Article from The Scranton Tribune, July 18, 1900

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Drainage company against the Bor- ough of Olyphant, and Gunster, as- signee, against Jessup and others, com- monly known as the City bank case. In the first named opinion, which is by Justice McCollum, a nice compli- ment is paid the trial judge, Hon. R. W. Archbald, on his review of the long- drawn-out case, contained in an opin- ion on the rule for a new trial. The Supreme court's confirmation of Judge Archbald's finding is couched in these words: This was an action of ejectment brought to recover possession of land which the plaintiff claimed he had valid title to. That the land was conveyed to him many years ago was shown by the deeds and papers in his possession and admitted in evidence on the trial. It required no oral testimony to establish his case in chief. The documentary evidence alone was quite suffi- cent for that purpose. The reply of the defend- ant to the claim of the plaintiff was based on an alleged equity arising from an alleged parol trust. It needs no argument to prove that a defense of this nature cannot prevail in the ab- sence of clear and satisfactory proof to sustain it. "The legal title to lands ought not to be exposed to the peril of a successful attack, ex- cepting where the right in equity is clearly established," Clark J. in Earnest's Appeal, 106 Pa. 318. # A NICE COMPLIMENT. The testimony introduced on the trial was re- markably voluminous and a part of it related to matters relevant to the issue and occurring more than fifty years ago. This testimony we have examined and considered with care and the con- clusion we have drawn from it is that it pre- sented an issue for the determination of a jury under proper instructions from the court. A specification herein of any part of the testimony is needless. Every part of it which is material to a proper understanding of the issue was re- ferred to in the charge, which occupies eighty pages of the appellant's paper book. More ex- haustive and pains-taking instructions seldom if ever appear in a charge. Whether there was an error in the instructions is a question to be con- sidered in connection with the assignments re- lating to the subject. There are thirty-seven assignments filed in the case and ten of them are based on excerpts from the charge. We have carefully examined and fully considered the excerpts on which the ten assignments above referred to rest, and are un- able to discover in either of them any cause for a reversal of the judgment or re-trial of the case. In this connection we may state that, in our opinion, the learned court below did not err in declining to grant permission to the defend- ants' counsel to open and close the case to the jury. This refusal is the basis of the second assignments, which we now dismiss with the as- signments based on the excerpts from the charge. The assignments relating to the affirm- ance or denial of the points submitted and to the admission or rejection of offers of evidence need not be specifically referred to nerein. Hav- ing examined all the assignments and duly con- sidered the arguments of counsel in support of and against them, we conclude that there is no reasonable ground for reversing the judgment entered in the court below. The case was care- fully and fairly tried and the result reached is in conformity with the testimony on which the verdict was based. All the assignments are therefore dismissed. Judgment affirmed. # PROCEEDINGS IRREGULAR. The opinion in the Olyphant sewer case is by Justice Fell. There was only one question at issue, the validity of the plaintiff's charter, and Justice Fell disposes of it in modest space, as fol- lows: Tested by the settled rule of our cases the con- clusion reached by the learned judge of the com- mon pleas is right for the reasons stated by him. We have uniformly held that the validity of a charter for a public purpose cannot be de- etermined in a collateral proceeding by a pri- vate suitor. It can be done only in a direct pro- ceeding to which the commonwealth is a party. Among the more recent cases on the subject are Hinchman vs. Philadelphia and West Chester Turnpike Road company, 160 Pa. 150, and the Gas and Water company vs. Borough of Down- ington, 183 Pa. 255. Whether a right or fran- chise claimed by a corporation is conferred by its charter may be inquired into in a proceeding at law or in equity by a party injured, as pro- vided by the act of June 19th, 1871, P. L. 1331; but whether for any reason the charter of a cor- poration was originally invalid or has been for- feited is a question which the commonwealth only can raise. The decree is affirmed at the cost of the ap- pellants. Judge Edwards tried the Olyphant case, and as has been the invariable rule with his findings in municipal law, the Supreme justices concur with him in every one of his conclusions. The City bank case was tried by Judge Archbald. The witness referred to is Edward Merrifield. His transfer of his interest in the bank was made just a few days before the second trial was decided by Judge Archbald to be a colorable transaction and therefore could not be allowed to make the wit- ness competent. As the whole case de- pended on Mr. Merrifield's testimony, the trial was abruptly terminated and an appeal taken to the Supreme court. The Supreme court, through Justice Fell, had this to say of the matter: # ACTION WAS COLORABLE. This action was brought by the assignee for the benefit of creditors of the Scranton City bank on a bond conditioned for the faithful per- formance of the duties of its vice-president. The principal and two of the sureties died before the trial, and the representatives of their estates have been substituted on the record as defend- ants. The witness whose competency was chal- lenged as to matters which had occurred during the lives of the deceased parties was a stock- holder in the bank at the time the assignment was made, and as such was liable to the credi- tors in double the amount of the stock held by him. He was also a director, and with the other directors had entered into an agreement with the depositors to pay them in full and to take an assignment of their claims against the bank, and claims amounting to $183,000 had been as- signed to them. For the purpose of carrying out this agreement, the witness had joined with the other directors in borrowing a large amount of money on their joint notes, one which for $9,000 was still unpaid. Notwithstanding the apparent incompetency of the witness because of his in- terest in the result of the trial, it was contend- ed that he was qualified to testify because the statute of limitation was a bar to any proceed- ings to enforce the liability of the stockholders, under the special provisions of the bank's char- ter, and because he had assigned his interest in the fund in the hands of the assignee for the benefits of creditors which he had acquired by the agreement mentioned for the purchase of the depositors' claims against the bank. It was held that the statute of limitations relieved the wit- ness from liability as a stockholder, and that the assignment of his interest was not colorable, but that it did not carry the whole interest, as he will still be liable on his agreement to pay the stockholders in full, and on the note given for the money borrowed for the purchase of claims. In view of the recent decision in Darragh vs. Stevenson, 183 Pa. 397, which was not brought

5. November 13, 1900 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA
Article from The Scranton Tribune, November 13, 1900

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Court House News Notes. The grand jury will make its final report today, it is expected. Attoney Ralph L. Levy applied for a charter for the Montefiore Hebrew school. The liquor license of T. J. Roche, of the Eighth ward, was yesterday transferred to W. T. Jenkins. Attorneys Carpenter & Fleitz made application yester y for a charter for the Broadway Athletic club, of Scranton, and the Black Diamond Hose company, No. 2, of Archbald. The hearing in the injunction case of Benjamin S. Robinson against Blacksmith M. J. Gerrity, which was to have taken place yesterday. was continued by agreement until Monday morning next. Ejectment proceedings were instituted yesterday by Hon. M. E. McDonald, as attorney for Calvin Seybolt, to secure possession of a lot on Hampton street, which, it is alleged, is unlawfully in the possession of P. Mulherin. Court yesterday confirmed conditionally the final account of the assignee of the Citizens' and Miners' Savings Bank and Trust company. In the matter of the assigned estate of the Scranton City bank the final account was confirmed finally. Suit for $1,000 was instituted vesterday by William Baylor, through Attorney C. H. Soper, against Seldon Spencer. The parties are neighbors, at Benton. Spencer was burning "foller," so it is alleged, and negligently allowed the fire to spread to a lot of Bavlor's fencing and live timber. Judge Edwards was engaged yesterday in hearing arguments in the DeanWinton equity suit which was begun before him a week ago yesterday. Judge Kelly spent the morning in hearing applicants for naturalization papers. A score were successful in passing the examination. Court yesterday confirmed the report of B. T. Jayne, D. J. Roche and J. F. Williams, viewers of the new Wyoming avenue, Ash street, Oakford, Forest and Breck court sewer. The property holders' two-thirds of the $6,000 expense was divided among the abutting properties, so that each fifty-foot lot paid about $55.

6. February 20, 1901 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA
Article from The Scranton Tribune, February 20, 1901

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# TO DISMISS A BILL. Hearing in a Rule in a Long-Standing Law Suit. Among the matters heard in argument court yesterday were arguments in the case of John T. Fitzpatrick against B. H. Throop and others, on the rule to dismiss the bill of complaint because it was not prosecuted within a reasonable time. Fitzpatrick was a stockholder in the defunct Scranton City bank. In 1891 he brought suit against the officers to recover his losses, on the ground that the affairs of the bank had been negligently managed. Because he allowed the case to run ten years without pushing it to an issue, the defense asks court to throw it out of court. The plaintiff claims he could not prosecute the case until the final report of the assignee was filed, because he could not tell what percentage of his investment would be lost. This, the defense claimed, did not relieve him of the duty of prosecuting the case within a reasonable time. Ex-Judge E. N. Willard appeared for the rule. S. B. Price and H. M. Hannah argued against it.

7. March 19, 1901 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA
Article from The Scranton Tribune, March 19, 1901

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

COURT HOUSE NEWS NOTES. Judge II. M. Edwards conducted naturalization court in No. 2 yesterday morning. In the divorce case of Humphreys against Humphreys a. hearing was yesterday fixed for March 22 at 2.30 D. m., before Judge Edwards, In the matter of the assigned estate of the Seranton City bank a supplemental account was yesterday filed and confirmed absolutely, the distribution to be made by the assignee M suggested and prayed for.