Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hood Ex Rel. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 26, 1936Published

1DissentStacy, C. J.

Will the statutory liability of stockholders in a bank be enforced against one who appears as a stockholder only by reason of the faithlessness of the bank? The answer should be, No.

We have held that fraud on the part of an officer of a bank in the sale of its stock will release the purchaser of this statutory liability. Hood, Comr., v. Martin, 203 N. C., 620, 166 S. E., 793. The conclusion rests upon the principle that the statute existent at the time enters into and becomes a part of the contract of stock subscription, and that no contract, or its complement, will be enforced which is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Parker v. . PotterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. Fisher v. . FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Hood, Comr. of Banks v. . MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  4. Hill v. . SmathersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  5. Hood Ex Rel. Bank of Pender v. PaddisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API