Legal Opinion

Litchfield v. . Roper

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 29, 1926PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

It is provided by statute tbat tbe stockholders of every bank organized under the laws of North Carolina shall be individually responsible, equally and ratably and not one for another, to the amount of their stock at the par value thereof, for all contracts, debts, and engagements of the bank, and that suit to enforce such liability may be brought by the receiver of the insolvent corporation. 1 C. S., 237; 3 C. S., 218(a), 219(a); Smathers v. Bank, 135 N. C., 410. The object of the present action is to enforce this statutory liability against the defendant upon an assessment of $2,200 duly…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Murdock v. City of MemphisSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. State v. Perkins.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Winslow v. . MortonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  4. Bramham v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  5. Smathers v. Bank.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Corp. Commission v. Merchants BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Norman v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1929
  3. City of Winston-Salem v. AshbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Williams-Fulghum Lumber Co. v. WelchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  5. Corporation Commission v. Stockholders of the Bank of BeulavilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API