Legal Opinion

Superintendent of Banks of New York v. Moors

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 1, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.

Carrying out the provisions of art. VIII, § 7, of the Constitution of New York, adopted in 1894, its banking law (Laws of 1914, c. 369), § 120, provides: “The stockholders of every bank shall be individually responsible, equally and ratably and not one for another, for all contracts, debts and engagements of the bank, to the extent of the amount of their stock therein, at the par value thereof, in addition to the amount invested in such shares.”

The Bank of • United States is a banking corporation formed under the laws of New York. The defendants are partners in a stock brokerage business in…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. New England Divisions CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Broderick v. RosnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Bushnell v. LelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. Coffin Brothers & Co. v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 1928

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Director of Liquidations v. WoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  2. Friede v. MackeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  3. Dacey v. San-Vel Contracting Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API