Skip to main content
· 12/17/1897

Murphy v. Pacific Bank

Citations

  • 119 Cal. 334
  • 51 P. 317
  • 1897 Cal. LEXIS 897

Syllabus

<p>Savings Bank—Chabteb—Amendments—Commebcial Business—Depositobs not Stockholdebs Pbepeebed—By-laws.—A savings bank organized under the banking act of 1862, which had the required capital stock contemplated by the amendments of 1864, was authorized by those amendments to engage in commercial business; but the original act as thus amended constituted its charter, and, in the absence of the adoption of a by-law, authorized thereby, extending the same security to depositors who were stockholders as to other depositors, the provisions of the act giving depositors who were not stockholders a prior claim upon the assets applies to savings banks who were doing a commercial business; and it was competent for its stockholders, either by acquiescence in the terms of the statute or by an express provision in its by-laws, to assure such preference tononstockholding creditors.</p> <p>Id.—Liability of Stockholdebs—Unconstitutional Exemption—Indbpendent Pbovision.—The unconstitutional exemption of stockholders of savings banks from liability under the act of 1862, was an independent provision, and did not affect or annul the provision declaring a preference in favor of nonstockholding creditors in the distribution, of the assets.</p> <p>Id.—Cebtificate of Deposit to Stockholdeb.—The fact that a certificate-of deposit was issued to a stockholder of a savings bank doing a commercial business, does not determine the character of the business transacted by the bank. Such certificates are usual with commercial banks, and, under section 576 of the Civil Code, may be issued by savings and loan corporations.</p> <p>Id.—Constitutional Law—Fobmation of -Oobpobations undeb Genebal Laws—Change of Legislation as to Savings Banks.—The fact that thq act of 1853 for the incorporation of savings banks did not postpone the claims of depositors who were stockholders, as was provided in the subsequent act of 1862, does not render the latter act unconstitutional, and its general and uniform operation

Judges: Haynes

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.