Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29 (1928)
U.S. Supreme Court, (April 30, 1928)
Docket number: 465
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20026035
Id. vLex: VLEX-20026035
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
RSSU.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Appellees, v. American Bank Trust Shares, Inc. (Abts); Howard H. Lamar; H. Ciremba Amick; William F. Lambert; Harry L. Parker; Banks H. Good; Augustus T. Allen; Douglas R. Bryant; Robert B. Fickling; Dr. James H. Vallentine; Marshall B. Williams; J. W. Wall, Jr.; Albert E. Odum; William H. Greer; Luther H. Adden; Carl Joe Taylor; Individually and as a Shareholder of Abts, Suing on Behalf of Himself and all Other Shareholders of Said Corporation, and for the Benefit of Said Corporation'S Subsidiary Company, American Bank & Trust; and Sadie G. Schein, Individually and Suing on Behalf of all Other Capital Note Holders of American Bank & Trust, Appellees, and Sidney Robinson Bagby, Dr. O. J. Ryan; A. G. Dwyer; Estate of Dr. C. P. Ryan, Sr., By Its Executor Dr. C. P. Ryan, Jr.; J. E. Smith; G. J. Getsinger; Weldon E. Wall; Catherine H. Hightower; R. P. Preacher; H. Kleigh Purdy, Jr.; Dr. T. B. Carroll, Jr.; Harold Wall; A. G. Martin; J. Glenn Jarrell; J. W. Wall, ..., 629 F.2d 951 (4th Cir. 1980) Appellees, v. American Bank Trust Shares, Inc. (Abts); Howard H. Lamar; H. Ciremba Amick; William F. Lambert; Harry L. Parker; Banks H. Good; Augustus T. Allen; Douglas R. Bryant; Robert B. Fickling; Dr. James H. Vallentine; Marshall B. Williams; J. W. Wall, Jr.; Albert E. Odum; William H. Greer; Luther H. Adden; Carl Joe Taylor; Individually and as a Shareholder of Abts, Suing on Behalf of Himself and all Other Shareholders of Said Corporation, and for the Benefit of Said Corporation'S Subsidiary Company, American Bank & Trust; and Sadie G. Schein, Individually and Suing on Behalf of all Other Capital Note Holders of American Bank & Trust, Appellees, and Sidney Robinson Bagby, Dr. O. J. Ryan; A. G. Dwyer; Estate of Dr. C. P. Ryan, Sr., By Its Executor Dr. C. P. Ryan, Jr.; J. E. Smith; G. J. Getsinger; Weldon E. Wall; Catherine H. Hightower; R. P. Preacher; H. Kleigh Purdy, Jr.; Dr. T. B. Carroll, Jr.; Harold Wall; A. G. Martin; J. Glenn Jarrell; J. W. Wall, ...
U.S. Supreme Court - Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974)
U.S. Supreme Court - Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - First Federal Savings Bank and Trust, a Federal Savings Bank; First Federal Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Lakeland Service Corporation, a Michigan Corporation; and Citizens Federal Savings Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. T. Timothy Ryan, Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, in His Own Official Capacity and as Successor in Interest To the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Own Capacity and as Successor in Interest To the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees., 927 F.2d 1345 (6th Cir. 1991) a Federal Savings Bank; First Federal Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Lakeland Service Corporation, a Michigan Corporation; and Citizens Federal Savings Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. T. Timothy Ryan, Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, in His Own Official Capacity and as Successor in Interest To the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Own Capacity and as Successor in Interest To the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
U.S. Supreme Court - Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981)
U.S. Supreme Court - Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974)
U.S. Supreme Court COFFIN BROS. & CO. v. BENNETT, 277 U.S. 29 (1928)
[Page 277 U.S. 29, 31] Fourteenth Amendment by denying to them due process of law. A general demurrer was sustained by the trial court and by the Supreme Court of the State. 164 Ga. 350, 138 S. W. 670. The objection urged by the plaintiffs in error seems to be that this section purports to authorize an execution and the creation of a lien at the beginning, before and without any judicial proceeding. But the stockholders are allowed to raise and try every possible defense by an affidavit of illegality, which, as said by the Supreme Court of Georgia makes the so-called execution 'a mode only of commencing against them suits to enforce their statutory liability to depositors.' A reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present the defense is given and if a defense is presented the execution is the result of a trial in court. The Fourteenth Amendment is not concerned with the form. Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40, 42, 46 S. Ct. 384. The fact that the execution is issued in the first instance by an agent of the State but not from a court, followed as it is by personal notice and a right to take the case into court, is a familiar method in Georgia and is open to no objection. Martin v. Bennett (D. C.) 291 F. 626, 630, 631. If the debtor does not demand a trial the execution does not need the sanction of a judgment (see Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272); the plaintiffs in error by becoming stockholders had assumed the liability on which they are to be held. Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U.S. 516, 529, 27 S. Ct. 755 As to the lien, nothing is more common than to allow parties alleging themselves to be creditors to establish in advance by attachment a lien dependent for its effect upon the result of the suit. We see nothing in this case that requires further argument to show that the decision below was right. Judgment affirmed.