Central National Bank v. Richland National Bank of Mansfield
New York Supreme Court
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are corporations deriving their existence and attributes from the acts of congress known as the national bank acts. This is a motion to vacate an attachment granted in violation of section 5242 of the Revised Statutes of the United States recently enacted.
Read the full summary
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are corporations deriving their existence and attributes from the acts of congress known as the national bank acts. This is a motion to vacate an attachment granted in violation of section 5242 of the Revised Statutes of the United States recently enacted. The provision is as follows: “No attachment, injunction, or execution shall be issued against such association or its property before final judgment in any suit, action or proceeding in any state, county or municipal court.” The plaintiff, itself a national bank, in violation of this provision, on August…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
— An attachment is not always essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction in a suit against a foreign corporation. Such jurisdiction is acquired in several ways. 1. In all cases by the personal service of the summons, within this state, upon its president, secretary or treasurer. 2. If the cause of action arose in this state, by such service upon (in addition to the three officers named) any other of the corporation, its cashier, or a director, or managing agent thereof; 3. By such service upon any one of such persons when the corporation has property within this state; 4. By the publication…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cooke v. . State National Bank of BostonNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Crocker v. Marine National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Chesapeake Bank v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1874
3Cited by1 opinion
- People's Bank v. Mechanics' National Bank of NewarkNew York Supreme Court · 1882