Legal Opinion

In re the State Bank of Canastota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 22, 1933PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtMcNamee, J.

It does not appear from the record on appeal that depositor Bussell ever presented, filed or proved a claim for the interest in question. The Banking Law directs that the liquidator “ shall notify all persons who may have claims ” against *41the bank “ to present the same to him and make proper proof thereof,” within the time and at the place specified in the notice given by him. (Banking Law, § 72.) A mere statement to the liquidator that Russell was entitled to interest on the deposit in question, without other showing, cannot be held to be a compliance with the statute. And the same section…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. . Metropolitan Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
  2. Matter of People (Norske Lloyd Ins. Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. In re Carnegie Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
  4. In re the Claim of HorowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Jacob Ruppert Realty Corp. v. Bank of United StatesNew York Supreme Court · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API