Legal Opinion

In Re Bank of Sampson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 1, 1933PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Depositors who are also borrowers are allowed to set off their deposits in closed banks against their obligations to said banks, because both claims exist between the same parties and in the same right. In re Bank, 204 N. C., 472, 168 S. E., 676; Coburn v. Carstarphen, 194 N. C., 368, 139 S. E., 596; Williams v. Coleman, 190 N. C., 368, 129 S. E., 818 ; Davis v. Mfg. Co., 114 N. C., 321, 19 S. E., 371; Note, 25 A. L. R., 938; 3 R. C. L., 529; 7 C. J., 745. But this is as far as the doctrine of set-off has been applied in the liquidation of insolvent banks. Indemnity Co. v. Corp. Com., 197 N.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Davis v. Industrial Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  2. National Bank v. WinslowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Hodgin v. Peoples' National BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  4. Coburn v. . CarstarphenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. International Bank v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1887

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re BrittonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1988
  2. Hoyle v. . CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  3. In Re IngersollUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1987
  4. Bourne v. Board of Financial Control for Buncombe CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. In Re Battery King Manufacturing CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

3 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