Legal Opinion

Nieman v. Bethlehem Nat. Bank

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 15, 1940No. 7431PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We agree with the conclusion reached by the district court, for the reasons satisfactorily stated in the opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick, 32 F.Supp. 436. We need only add that we see no basis for the defendant’s contention that it is not liable for interest for the period during which the insolvent bank, of which the plaintiff is receiver, was trustee of the defendant estate. The stockholders’ liability represented by the judgment recovered in this case was imposed for the benefit of the creditors of the bank, not of the bank itself. Dunn v. O’Connor, 67 App.D.C. 76, 89 F.2d 820. Consequently…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Casey v. GalliSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Nieman v. Bethlehem Nat. BankDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Dunn v. O'CONNORCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1937

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Republic of Cape Verde v. A & A PartnersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1980
  2. Eleanor G. Biggs v. Public Service Coordinated Transport v. Robert Washington Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
  3. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Camille Chteh, et al.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
  4. Wagner ex rel. Molner v. South Chicago Sav. BankCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API