Hubbard v. Bank of United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
[This was a bill in equity by Amos H. Hubbard against the Bank of the United States and others, to compel a transfer of bank stocks on the bank’s books.] The points presented by the pleadings and proofs are, in substance, that James Lanman, of Norwich, Connecticut, had invested funds belonging to the separate estate of his wife in the stock of the Bank of the United States, intended to be reserved for her separate- use, but, for convenience of transfer and drawing dividends,…
Read the full summary
[This was a bill in equity by Amos H. Hubbard against the Bank of the United States and others, to compel a transfer of bank stocks on the bank’s books.] The points presented by the pleadings and proofs are, in substance, that James Lanman, of Norwich, Connecticut, had invested funds belonging to the separate estate of his wife in the stock of the Bank of the United States, intended to be reserved for her separate- use, but, for convenience of transfer and drawing dividends, the shares and scrip were taken in the name of James Lan-man and his wife jointly. That on the 1st of September. 1834.…
1Opinion of the Court
THE COTJRT
remarked that there was no proof to support the allegation that the purchase by the complainant was collusive or fraudulent with respect to the creditors of Lanman. The controversy, then, was between a bona fide purchaser and the attachment creditors, and it turned exclusively upon questions of law. The rights and interests of proprietors or stockholders in banking companies pass by assignment, and no other formality »is requisite to vest the full property therein, in a purchaser, 2 Cow. 770; 11 Wend. 627; 6 Pick. 324; 8 Pick. 90; 9 Pick. 202; 10 Pick. 422. The existence of by-laws…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- President of the Bank of Utica v. SmalleyNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Kenny v. UdallNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
- Haviland v. MyersNew York Court of Chancery · 1822