11346. American Bank (Beatrice, NE)

Bank Information

Episode Type
Suspension → Closure
Bank Type
state
Start Date
July 1, 1893*
Location
Beatrice, Nebraska (40.268, -96.747)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini
Short Digest
a6eeae358335faed

Response Measures

None

Description

The articles describe the American Bank of Beatrice having closed its doors in July 1893 and subsequently being declared insolvent and placed in receivership (receiver qualified March 1895). No newspaper text describes a depositor run. The bank remained defunct and a receiver (Alfred Hazlett) pursued actions against stockholders in later years. Dates are taken from article text (closure July 1893; court/receiver actions March 1895).

Events (5)
1. July 1, 1893* Suspension
Cause
Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details
Bank became insolvent/defunct and closed its doors in July 1893; officers sought to close affairs and give bond rather than immediate receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
When the bank closed its doors in July, 1893, the officers went to the supreme court and secured permission to close up the bank's affairs without their being placed in the hands of a receiver
Source
newspapers
2. March 12, 1895 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
This afternoon the sheriff took charge of the books, papers, notes, etc., belonging to the defunct American bank. This was done in accordance with an order of the district court, made on account of certain stockholders in the concern asking for the appointment of a receiver.
Source
newspapers
3. March 23, 1895 Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
Mr. Hazlett qualified as receiver on March 23, 1895. ... The American bank of Beatrice was adjudged insolvent on March 20, 1895.
Source
newspapers
4. July 15, 1904 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
Alfred Hazlett, receiver of the American Bank, of Beatrice, Neb., has brought three suits against local parties to recover money to help pay the obligations of the insolvent bank. There is owing by this bank some $42,000.
Source
newspapers
5. July 26, 1907 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
Mr. Hazlett is receiver of the American Bank of Beatrice, Nebraska, which failed some year ago. He brought suits to try to hold the defendants as stockholders for a part of the bank's indebtedness.
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (9)
1. March 13, 1895 Omaha Daily Bee Omaha, NE
Article from Omaha Daily Bee, March 13, 1895

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

SHERIFF IN CHARGE OF A BANK. Defunet American Institution of Beatrice the Cause of Much Trouble. BEATRICE, Neb., March 12.-(Special Telegram.)-This afternoon the sheriff took charge of the books, papers, notes, etc., belonging to the defunct American bank. This was done in accordance with an order of the district court, made on account of certain stockholders in the concern asking for the appointment of a receiver. When the bank closed its doors in July, 1893, the officers went to the supreme court and secured permission to close up the bank's affairs without their being placed in the hands of a receiver, giving bond for the payment of 100 cents on the dollar of the establishment's indebtedness. The time specified for closing up the business expired and an extension was asked and granted, and now that the time has again expired and the creditors are still unpaid suits are being commenced against the bondsmen and certain stockholders begin to fear they will be held personally for the indebtedness, hence the request for a receiver.

2. July 15, 1904 The Providence News Providence, RI
Article from The Providence News, July 15, 1904

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

STOCKHOLDERS IN WESTERN BANK SUED BY RECEIVER. Alfred Hazlett, receiver of the American Bank, of Beatrice, Neb., has brought three suits against local parties to recover money to help pay the obligations of the involvent bank. There is owing by this bank some $42,000. Littlefield & Barrows are the local attorneys for the receiver. Damages in the suits filed today aggregate $16,500. It is declared that the bank went into the hands of a receiver in 1895 and that the condition of the bank and the amount of its liabilities were determined on March 27, 1902. Stockholders under the laws of Nebraska are responsible for the amount of the par value of their capi. tal stock, the declaration recites, and seven per cent interest since March 27, 1902. The Providence Mutual Investment company holds 50 shares of the capital stock and is sued for $7000. Thomas A. Woodhead, it is declared, holds 20 shares and is sued for $5000. Mary E. Woodhead, it is claimed, holds ten shares of the capital stock and she is sued for $1500. The Mercantile Trust company is defendant in a suit to recover $3000, as it is alleged the company owns 20 shares. The capital stock was worth $100 par. It is asserted that the insolvent bank has now no assets.

3. March 13, 1905 The Providence News Providence, RI
Article from The Providence News, March 13, 1905

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# SEEKING TO # ENFORCE # LIABILITY Chief Justice Dougias and Justices Dubois and Blodgett today heard on de- murrers of respondents in the suits brought by Alfred Hazlett, receiver of the American bank, of Beatrice, Ne- braska, against Thomas A. Woodhead, Mary E. Woodhead, Providence Mutual Investment company and Mercantile Trust company. Mr. Hazlett was in- structed by the court, which appointed him receiver, to bring suits for the re- covery of all assets of the bank, and after showing that it was necessary to pay debts, to enforce the double liability of stockholders as provided by the Nebraska constitution and to bring the necessary suits against such stockholders. The present suits are brought in accord- ance with the Nebraska court's order. It has been judicially decreed, com- plainant claims, that the suits against the respondents are necessary, and that the decision of the supreme court of Nebraska finding such suits necessary is entitled to fuil faith and credit in Rhode Island, and that said receiver has de- manded and has been refused payment. A demurrer to each declaration was filed the same. the gorunds, however, are There are some 11 grounds stated in the briefs filed by Robert W. Burbank and John N. Butman, counsel for the respond- ents. I is claimed by the defendants that the ceclarations do not show that the receiv- er has authority to bring suit, in this state, that the defendants were parties to or in any way bond by the decision of the court in the case against the bank in Nebraska, that it does not apepar that the statutes or constitution of Nebraska au- thorize a receiver to sue to recover from a stockholder upon his liability as such, that under the decisions in Nebraska the receiver cannot bring action at law to re- cover in such cases as this but the rights of ali parties in interest should be deter- nrined in equity, that it does not appear what part, if any, of the alleged indebted- ness was contracted while defendants were stockholders, that it does not ap- rear judgment was ever obtained against the defendants in Nebraska, Further it is claimed that "The liabil- ity which the defendants seek to enforce is created by the statutes of a foreign state and is not considered a contractural Jiaolity in this state and is contrary to the policy of the laws of this state and will not be enforced by its courts against one of its citizens." Mr. Burbank, in concluding his brief, asserts that the recognition of the re- ceiver of the foreign bank rests upon comity between states which it is a well established principle will not be extended by courts of justice when they will there- by infiiet injury upon, or do injustice to their own citizens, and upon the full faith and credit required by the consti- tution and statute of the United States to be given to the judicial proceedings of the court of other states, which require- ment, however, leaves always open any defence which might have been available in the state of the judgment. The bank deficit amounts to $42,000 and not over $25,000 of the capital stock of $100,000 is owned by solvent persons. Na- than W. Littlefield and Chester W. Bar- rows represent the receiver.

4. January 29, 1906 The Providence News Providence, RI
Article from The Providence News, January 29, 1906

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

CASES AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT The suits of Alfred Hazlett, receiver, against Thomas A. Woodhead and Mary E. Woodhead of Central Falls, and Mercantile Trust company and Providence Mutual Investment company of this city, were heard in the Supreme court today on important points of law raised on demurrer and certified to the court. These suits are to enforce stockholders' liabilities. The defendants were stockholders of the American bank of Beatrice, Neb. The Woodheads held respectively $2000 and $1000 worth of capital stock of the bank when it became insolvent, and it is sought under the law of Nebraska to collect the sum of $3000 from them. Some dozen points were raised on demurrer, one of the chief being that a receiver appointed under proceedings in the state of Nebraska has no right to sue in the courts of the state of Rhode Island. and The bank was about $42,000 behind its capital stock was $100,000. The trust company and investment company are sought to be held responsible for the amount of their holdings of the stock of the defunct bank.

5. May 10, 1906 The Providence News Providence, RI
Article from The Providence News, May 10, 1906

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# CANNOT FILE # DEMURRERS IN # AMENDED FORM Presiding Justice Swetlaned denied today the motion of the plaintiff in the suits of Alfred Hazlett, receiver of the American Bank of Beatrice, Nebraska, against Providence Mutual Investment company, Mary E. Woodhead, Mercantile Trust company and Thomas A. Woodhead, for leave to file amended declarations. These suits are actions of assumpsit to recover from the defendants as stockholders of the Beatrice bank. Recently the cases were argued in the supreme court on demurrers filed by the defendants. The supreme court sustained the demurrers. Judge Sweetland in denying the motions to allow amended declarations to be filed says: "In Hazlett vs. Woodhead, 27 R. I. 506, the court following the Nebraska cases held that the stockholders' liability and the amount of such liability should be determined by proceedings in equity, in which this defendant, as stockholder, should be made a party, together with all other stockholders." His honor then reviews court proceedings in Nebraska and reaches the conclusion that: "As there is no allegation in the declaration of any proper judicial proceeding to which this defendant was a party, instituted to enforce the defendant's liability as a stockholder, the plaintiff's motion must be denied." John N. Butman and Robert W. Burbank were counsel for the defendants.

6. May 11, 1906 Omaha Daily Bee Omaha, NE
Article from Omaha Daily Bee, May 11, 1906

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

STOCKHOLDERS WIN IN COURT Effort to Collect for Benefit of Creditors is a Failure. PROVIDENCE, R. I., May 10.-(Special Telegram.)-The Rhode Island court has denied the plaintiff's motion in suits brought by Alfred Hazlett, receiver of the American bank of Beatrice, Neb., against prominet Rhode Islanders.

7. May 31, 1907 The News-Democrat Providence, RI
Article from The News-Democrat, May 31, 1907

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

PHONE REPORTS ARE NOW F READY NEBRASKA BANK Majority of Committee Tells STOCKHOLDERS CASE BEFORE THE Why Its Proposed Agree ment With the Providence SUPREME COURT VOTE FOR MERGER Telephone Co. on a Six Chief Justice Douglas and Justices Dubois, Blodgett, Johnson and Parkhurst toOn motion of Judge Robertson, the A special meeting of the stockholders meeting was then adjourned until afterday heard the cases of Alfred Hazlett, of the New York, New Haven and Hartnoon in order to allow of tht filing of the Year Exclusive Franchis receiver of the American bank of Beaford Railroad company was held at the amendment at the secretary of state's oftrice, Neb., against Thomas A. Woodrailroad offices in New Haven today to fice, after which the merger can be legally carried through. head and May E. Woodhead of Central accept the amendment to the charter of It was ascertained in official quarters Falls. Mercantile Trust company and the corporation contained in a resolution of the New York. New Haven and HartProvidence Mutual Investment company Basis Should Be Adopted recently passed by the Connecticut legisford Railroad company that the fiew on plaintiff's exceptions to the decision of lature permitting the merger of the cor$30,000,000 of stock for which application the superior court sustaining tht defendhas been made for listing at the New ants' demurrers to the plaintiff's amendporation with and in the Consolidated ed declarations. York stock exchange is immediately conRailway company, a majority of whose Vigorous Dissent by Mi It is provided in the constitution of stock is held by the New Haven comnected with the merger of that corporaNebraska as follows: "Every stockholdpany. tion with the Consolidated Railway corner in a banking corporation or institution The object of the merger is to consollpany today. shall be individually responsible and liadate and make common stock of both The latter company recently took over nority-CityCounciltoGe ble to its creditors over and above the corporations under the title of the New the New England Navigation company at amount of stock by him held to an York, New Haven and Hartford coma valuation of $20,000,000 or exactly the amount equal to his respective stock or pany, said company to have as by-laws price which C. W. Morse some time ago shares so held for all its liabilities accruthe by-laws of the Consolidated Railway Voluminous Statements. offered for the property. Against this ing while he remains such stockholder. company and to have as its directors unThe American bank of Beatrice was ad$20,000,000 of Consolidated Railway comtil the next annual meeting the same persons as are directors of the Consolidated judged insolvent on March 20. 1895, and pany's stocmk was oreated which added Mr. Hazlett qualified as receiver on Railway company. to the previous outstanding $10,000,000 March 23. 1895. Thomas A. Woodhead held At the meeting about 30 stockholders makes $30,000,000 of stock which in the $2000 worth of stock in this bank. Mary were present. including a number of the merger now is represented by the $30.The city council committee which has the seven members of the committee, a E. Woodhead held $1000 worth of stock. directors. After the call was read. Judge 000.000 of stock share for share of the is a voluminous document. Both report Defendants say the Nebraska constituA. H. Robertson of New Haven offered a been probing the subject of granting to steam corporation. if bound, would make a volume of mo tion does not give the receiver the right resolution that the charter amendment be the Home Telephone company a franchise This $80,000,000 of stock while legally outto sue stockholders; that a receiver apthan 100 pages, to say nothing of the a accepted and notice filed with the secrestanding is held in the New York, New to compete with the Providence Telepointed under proceedings in Nebraska tary of state. This required a stock vote denda and appendices which are as 10 has no right to sue in any court of the Haven and Hartford Railroad company's which resulted in 508,969 votes in favor again as either of the two reports. phone company for the business of Provistate of Rhode Island, and many other treasury for any legal use whatsoever. and none opposed. The agreement contained in the majo dence will make its report to the common things against the maintaining of these 1ty report follows: suits. council next Monday evening. "Unlimited business 'phone (one part Complainant claims that the provision of the Nebraska constitution is self-exe$80. This report by a vote of six to one, cuting. and does not require supplement"Unlimited business phone (two part as has been exclusively stated in the ary statutes. $60. News-Democrat, will favor an exclusive DOG THAT BIT LAMOUREUX CASE The bank deficit according to declara"Limited business 'phone (one party franchise for the Providence company tions is about $42,000. N. W. Littlefield is 600 calls, $40. for a term of six years and contains the attorney for the receiver, and William J. "Limited business 'phone (two part: Brown and John N. Butman represent terms of an agreement the majority of 600 calls, $83. the defendants. the committee has decided to recommend THE CONNOR BOY MAY BE SENT TO "Unlimited residence, (one party) $48 to the These

8. June 28, 1907 The News-Democrat Providence, RI
Article from The News-Democrat, June 28, 1907

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# Cases Sent Back Judge Dubois today handed down the opinion of the supreme court in plaintiff's exceptions taken to the action of the superior court in sustaining demurrers to the amended declarations in the cases of Alfred Hazlett, receiver, vs. Thomas A. Woodhead, Mary E. Woodhead, Mercantile Trust company and Providence Mutual Investment company. The action of the superior court is approved and the cases are sent back for further proceedings. These are suits to enforce stockholders' liability under a law of Nebraska. Defendants were stockholders in the American bank of Beatrice, Neb., which became insolvent. Defendants claim that the law of Nebraska was not complied with in the appointment of receiver for the bank or in relation to the bringing of these suits.

9. July 26, 1907 The News-Democrat Providence, RI
Article from The News-Democrat, July 26, 1907

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# JUDGMENT IN DEMURRER # FOR COSTS ENTERED Judgement in demurrer for casts of defence was entered in the superior court today in each of the following cases: Alfred Hazlett, receiver vs. Thomas A. Woodhead; Alfred Hazlett, receiver, vs. Mary E. Woodhead; Alfred Hazlett, receiver, vs. Mercantile Trust company, and Alfred Hazlett, receiver, vs. Providence Mutual Investment company. Mr. Hazlett is receiver of the American Bank of Beatrice, Nebraska, which failed some year ago. He brought suits to try to hold the defendants as stockholders for a part of the bank's indebtedness. Many legal tangles could not be straightened out and the suits, which involved some $20,000, are now disposed of.