Legal Opinion
Wittnebel v. Loughman
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 4, 1935PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PATTERSON, District Judge.
The plaintiff, a stockholder in a failed national bank, has brought suit to restrain the receiver of the bank from impeding the plaintiff’s examination of the books and records of the bank. The present motion is by the defendant to dismiss the amended bill as insufficient on its face.
The amended bill is long and discursive. In substance it avers that the plaintiff is and for years has been a large stockholder of the National City Bank of New Rochelle; that the bank failed to open after March 3, 1933; that the defendant was appointed conservator by the Comptroller of…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Scott v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Kennedy v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Boske v. ComingoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Casey v. GalliSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Merrill v. National Bank of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wittnebel v. LoughmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- Loughman v. PitzDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1941
- Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. BankDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1936
- Wittnebel v. LoughmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- Capital Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Olympia Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.