In Re the Matter of the Examination of the Union Bank
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 9, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate a warrant of arrest issued to enforce a subpoena of the superintendent of banks directed to and served upon the appellant herein.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 9, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate a warrant of arrest issued to enforce a subpoena of the superintendent of banks directed to and served upon the appellant herein. The following questions were certified: “ 1. Was the superintendent of banks, upon the facts herein disclosed, authorized to issue the subpoena dated August 22, 1911, requiring the attendance before him of Edward M. Grout ? 2. Was the warrant issued upon…
1Opinion of the CourtWerner, J.
On the 5th day of April, 1910, the state superintendent of banks took possession of the Union Bank of Brooklyn for the ■ purpose of liquidating its affairs. The only authority for that act is to be found in section 19 of the Banking Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 2). That section was enacted in 1908 (Chap. 143) and it provides: “ Whenever it shall appear to the superintendent that any corporation or individual banker to which this chapter is applicable has violated its chai’ter or any law of the state, or is conducting its business in an unsafe or unauthorized manner, or if the capital of any such…
2Cited by38 opinions
- Dunham v. OttingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Kidder v. HallTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Lafayette Trust Co. v. . BeggsNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- In Re Prudence Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- Hanson v. SoderbergWashington Supreme Court · 1919
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.