Legal Opinion

Nieman v. Soltis

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 15, 1938No. 20600PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

This is a suit at law by the receiver of a closed bank against a stockholder to recover an assessment of the par value of his stock. An affidavit of defense has been filed, and this rule challenges its sufficiency.

The statement of claim alleges the defendant’s ownership of the stock, the closing of the Bank; the appointment of several successive conservators and receivers , (the last of whom is the present plaintiff), the assessment and demand upon the stockholders by the Comptroller of the Currency, notice to this .defendant, his refusal to pay, and the bringing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Adams v. NagleSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Deweese v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
  3. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. SunseriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Kirschler v. WainwrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  5. Johnson v. GreeneDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1936

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Nieman v. LongDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Rosenberg v. DeitrickDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1940
  3. Sherman v. Provident American Insurance CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Sherman v. Provident American Insurance CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API