Rogers v. Huntingdon Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon county. It was an action action against the Huntingdon bank, for money had and received for the use of the plaintiffs. The circumstances of the case were these: Samuel Maxwell held a hundred shares of stock in the bank, on which thirty per cent, of the principal had been paid.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon county. It was an action action against the Huntingdon bank, for money had and received for the use of the plaintiffs. The circumstances of the case were these: Samuel Maxwell held a hundred shares of stock in the bank, on which thirty per cent, of the principal had been paid. On the 18th of October, 1815, Maxwell gave a power of attorney to William E. Smith, to receive the dividends, and, on the same day, he gave him another power, to transfer the ^ stock to the plaintiffs. At the date of these powers, Maxwell was' indebted to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tilghman, C. J.
1. Were the plaintiffs entitled to a transfer of the stock, without paying MaxwelVs note? This bank, with many others, was incorporated by the ££act regulating banks,” passed the 21st of March, 1813, (6 Sm. L. 154,) and it is enacted in the 7th section, article 11, “that. the stock of each of the said companies, shall be assignable and transferable on the books of the company only, in the presence of the president or cashier, and in such manner as the by-laws shall ordain; but no stockholder indebted to the institution, shall be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Diechman v. Northampton BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Mobile Mutual Insurance v. CullomSupreme Court of Alabama · 1873
- Sewall v. Lancaster BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828