Legal Opinion

Bushnell v. Leland

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 4, 1897No. 497PublishedCited by 119 opinions

error to the district court or the united states for the DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice White

The plaintiff in error being a stockholder in the State National Bank of Wichita, Kansas, was sued to enforce payment of the double liability imposed by law. The pleadings aver -the existence of the legal prerequisites to the stockholder’s liability, viz., the subscription by defendant to the stock, the due organization of and the authority conferred on the bank to engage in business, the suspension, the valid appointment of a receiver, and a ratable assessment made by the Comptroller on the stockholders in-conformity to law. Revised Statutes, §§ 5151, 5234.

At the trial objection was taken…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Casey v. GalliSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. United States v. KnoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1880

3Cited by119 opinions

  1. In Re ChetwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. Ames v. American National BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
  3. Public Clearing House v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  4. Broderick v. RosnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  5. McCormick v. Market BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1897

114 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API