In re the Receiver of the Middle District Bank
New York Court of Chancery
The receiver of the Middle District Bank submitted a variety of questions to the court, for instructions thereon relative to the discharge of his duties, on wMch the following directions were given:
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:—In the case of Miller v. The Receiver of the Franklin Bank, (ante, 444,) this court decided *586that any equitable offset which the debtor had at the time the bank stopped payment was not altered by the appointment of a receiver. It makes no difference whether the debt of the bank was then payable or has become due since. If a debtor claims to off set bills which were then in the hands of any other person for his use, the receiver should be satisfied he was the real owner of the bills at that time; and if the amount due thereon is lost, that the loss will legally and equitably…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Bank of United States v. BravemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Farmers' Bank v. WillisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1873
- Diven v. PhelpsNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Citizens' Bank v. Kendrick, Pettus & Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1893
- Balch v. WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.