Legal Opinion
Binenstock v. Willing
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 23, 1936No. 8757PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
The Commercial National Bank was taken over by the Comptroller of the Currency as of February 28, 1933. On that day Swinger and Binenstock, partners, were jointly indebted to the bank upon promissory notes in an amount in excess of $20,000 (subsequently somewhat reduced by credits allowed). Binenstock had an individual deposit with the bank in excess of $30,000 and Swinger an individual deposit of about $1,500.
Binenstock, as surviving partner, and Mrs. Swinger, as executrix of Swinger, deceased, have filed this bill in equity, setting out the' above facts and also…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Tucker v. OxleySupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Trainor Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Gray v. RolloSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Sim v. EdenbornSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Willing v. BinenstockSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Willing v. Lupin Building & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1937
- Bohack Corp. v. Borden, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1978
- Willing v. BinenstockCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937