Union State Bank v. Peoples State Bank
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.
Respondents claim that the two plaintiffs cannot be heard to assert preferences for want of proper procedure.- One such claim expressly recited that it was filed as a preferred claim in the proceedings before the commissioner of banking, the other did not so expressly recite. *32Both such, however, were evidently treated as preferred claims and were rejected by the commissioner of banking expressly designating them as preferred claims. They were pleaded as such in the respective complaints and recognized as such by the answers. This contention, therefore, cannot be upheld.
If the trial court was…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Fourth Street Bank of Philadelphia v. YardleySupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Cragie v. . HadleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Truelsch v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Leach v. Farmers Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- Andrew v. State Bank of DexterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- Skinner v. PorterIdaho Supreme Court · 1928
- State ex rel. Sorensen v. Nebraska State BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1931
- Tooele Co. Bd. of Ed. v. Hadlock, State Bank Com'rUtah Supreme Court · 1932
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.