Skip to main content
· 5/11/1905

Hulitt v. Ohio Valley Nat. Bank

Citations

  • 137 F. 461
  • 14 Ohio F. Dec. 664
  • 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4560

Syllabus

<p>1. National Banks—Assessment against Shareholders — Ownership op Stock.</p> <p>As a general rule, the question of liability for an assessment on the shares of an insolvent national bank depends upon who was the actual owner of the stock when the operations of the bank were suspended.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 6, Cent. Dig. Banks and Banking, §§ 916-918.]</p> <p>2. Same—Pledged Stock.</p> <p>For the purposes of the national banking act, the pledgor of stock not transferred on the books is to be regarded as the' owner until and unless something further transpires which operates to transfer the ownership to another.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 6, Cent. Dig. Banks and Banking, § 920.</p> <p>Rights and liabilities of pledgees of corporate stock, see note to Frater v. Old Nat Bank, 42 C. C. A. 135.1</p> <p>3. Same—Liability of Pledgee—Divesting Ownership op Pledgor.</p> <p>Defendant bank held stock of a national bank as; collateral security for a note at the time the maker of the note died leaving it unpaid. Subsequently defendant caused the stock, which was indorsed in blank by the pledgor, to be transferred On the books of the bank to one of its employés who was irresponsible, and who paid no consideration for the transfer, but in fact held the stock for defendant.' Defendant then' made an indorsement on the note of a sum as proceeds of a sale of the stock made on the day of the transfer, and proved the balance due on the note against the estate of the pledgor, and was paid dividends thereon. Held, that such transaction' operated to transfer the ownership of the stock from the pledgor’s estate to defendant, which was liable for an assessment thereon on the subsequent failure of the issuing bank.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that brother-in-law was acting as plaintiff’s agent when he communicated with prospective attorneys and that those communications were privileged
  • holding attorney-client privilege applied to communications between client’s brother-in-law and various attorneys where brother-in-law was acting as client’s agent in seeking legal advice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Severens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.