Murphy v. Pacific Bank
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNES, C.
The defendant, a banking corporation, closed its doors on June 33, 1893, being then insolvent, and on November 3, 1893, was duly declared insolvent in a proceeding taken under section 11 of the bank commissioners’ act, and since that time has been in liquidation, and has declared and paid six dividends of five per cent each on the unsecured claims of its depositors and creditors, exclusive of creditors who are stockholders, and future dividends amounting to ten or fifteen per cent are expected to be paid.
This action was brought to recover a judgment against the defendant for the sum…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McGowan v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Robinson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Crane v. Pacific BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by14 opinions
- State Compensation Insurance Fund v. AllenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Menard v. Montana Central Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1899
- Doyle v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Murphy v. Pacific BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Argues v. Union Sav. Bank of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.