Hood v. Martin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.
The questions in this case are: (1) whether or not a stockholder in a bank who has been induced to purchase the stock from the bank through the fraud of its president can set up such fraud as a defense against the statutory liability for an assessment after the insolvency of the bank, under the North Carolina statute, amendment 1927, on the subject, the stockholder being guilty of no laches. (2) Could this be done prior to the amendment of 1927? We think so.
N. C. Code of 1931 (Anno.), Micbie, C. S., 218(c), 13(d), is as follows: “All sums collected under tbe levy shall become immediately…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commissioner of Banks v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Corp. Commission v. Merchants BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Corporation Commission v. . MurpheySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Florida Land & Imp. Co. v. MerrillCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1892
- State Bank of Portland v. GotshallOregon Supreme Court · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hood Ex Rel. Bank of Pender v. PaddisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934