Brannin v. Loving
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 61 — BANKS APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The charter of the hank provides that, exclusive of amounts due depositors, the debts of the hank should not exceed the amount of its paid-up capital.
Read the full summary
Case 61 — BANKS APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The charter of the hank provides that, exclusive of amounts due depositors, the debts of the hank should not exceed the amount of its paid-up capital. The paid-up capital was $543 9P0. 2. Appellees either knew of the disregard of section 16 of the act, or they did not; and were grossly negligent about the management of the hank. 3. The case of Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke is the leading case on the subject. (7 Beaman, 176; 9 Bush, 621.) 4. Appellees were agents of the corporation, and, as such,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion of the court.
Bv an act of the Legislature, approved March 29, 1872, the “Exchange Bank and' Tobacco Warehouse Company of Louisville” was incorporated and authorized to transact a general banking and warehouse business..
Section 16, of the charter, provides that “the indebtedness of this corporation, over and above that incurred for deposits of money, shall at no time exceed their paid-up capital stock.”
On May 29, 1875, the “manager” of the warehouse ■department, by the direction, of the appellee, Harvey, who was then the president of the company, drew a bill of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schley v. DixonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
3Cited by9 opinions
- Llewellyn Iron Works v. Abbott Kidney Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Thompson v. GreeleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Lyons v. CorderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- Warren v. RobisonUtah Supreme Court · 1899
- Cunningham v. ShellmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.