Legal Opinion

Parker v. Central Bank & Trust Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 17, 1932PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBkogdeN, J.

The questions of law involved in the appeal may be stated as follows:(1) Is the deposit which is the subject of the controversy “a deposit for a specific purpose” as contemplated and defined by law?(2) Does such deposit entitle the owner or beneficiary thereof to a preferred claim upon the assets of an insolvent bank?

Bank deposits are classified by law as general deposits, special deposits, and deposits for a specific purpose. The definitions of such de posits are set forth in Corporation Commission v. Trust Co., 193 N. C., 696, 138 S. E., 22. Tbe Court says: “A deposit for a specific purpose…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Corp. Commission v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. First & Citizens National Bank v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. First National Bank of Richmond v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  4. Bank v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  5. Corporation Commission v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Trust Co. v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Flack v. . Hood, Comr.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. Busher, Clerk v. Fulton, Supt.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Cocke v. Hood Ex Rel. Central Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. In re the Liquidation of the Bank of PenderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933

20 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