Legal Opinion

Masonic Foundation v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 29, 1936Published

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Is plaintiffs’ claim one of preference or one of commonalty? This is the only question. The amount is agreed upon, and all other matters were reserved for future determination.

It is not perceived upon what theory the ease can be distinguished in principle from a general deposit by any other legally self-depositing fiduciary, e.g., fiscal or financial agent (Trust Co. v. Hood, Comr., 206 N. C., 268, 173 S. E., 601; Underwood v. Hood, Comr., 205 N. C., 399, 171 S. E., 364), executor (In re Garner Banking and Trust Co., 204 N. C., 791, 168 S. E., 813), guardian (In re Home Savings Bank, 204 N.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Trust Co. v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. First & Citizens National Bank v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. State Ex Rel. Roebuck v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Flack v. . Hood, Comr.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  5. Cates v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1910

11 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