Legal Opinion

In Re Liquidation of Exchange Bank

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 9, 1933No. 535PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtRichards, J.

A motion has been filed by the claimant to dismiss the appeal on- the ground that the case is not one ixx chancery and that therefore this court does not have appellate jurisdiction thereof. The contentioxi of Shoup is that he deposited with the bank for safekeeping and to hold fox- him in tx-ust $1500.00 in Liberty Bonds which the bank received. pursuant to §710-110 GC, and he- seeks by this proceeding to fasten a trust on the assets of the bank and to require an allowance of the same as a preferred claim. This court is of the opinion that the action is in chancery within the constitutional…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Miller v. Viola State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Diebold Safe Lock Co. v. Fulton, Supt.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API