Legal Opinion

Schwenker v. Bekkedal

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1931PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The appellant Bekkedal claims that the court erred: (1) in finding that he owned stock of the bank; (2) in holding that the suits against the individual stockholders did not waive recovery of the superadded statutory liability of defendants herein; (3) in concluding that expense of liquidation should be included in making up the deficit for which the stockholders are finally liable; (4) in entering judgment, if he is held to own stock, for a greater sum than that computed by taking such proportion of the deficit as his stock bears to the total .stock of the bank. The other appellants make…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. KnoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Mulberger v. BeurhausWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Coyle v. Taunton Safe Deposit & Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  4. Williams v. BrewsterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  5. In Re Hollister Bank of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1863

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Banking Commission v. MuzikWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Cleary v. BrokawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Hibernia Securities Co. v. PirieOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Kreutzer v. GallagherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Banking Comm. of Wisc. v. JacobsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1941

5 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