11995. Farmers State Bank (Overton, NE)

Bank Information

Episode Type
Suspension → Closure
Bank Type
state
Start Date
June 1, 1931*
Location
Overton, Nebraska (40.739, -99.538)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini
Short Digest
5328f5c34b54ff6a

Response Measures

None

Description

Articles (Lincoln Journal Star, 1931-06-29) report that Farmers State Bank of Overton was insolvent and had a receiver appointed; a later foreclosure action attempted to appoint a second receiver but the supreme court held the department-appointed receiver controlled the assets. No run or temporary reopening is mentioned; bank is in receivership/closed.

Events (2)
1. June 1, 1931* Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
...a receiver had been named for the bank... and Arthur A. Foreman, president and principal stockholder of the Farmers State bank of Overton... (Lincoln Journal Star, 1931-06-29).
Source
newspapers
2. June 29, 1931 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
Wells brought foreclosure proceedings, and the lower court named W. R. Smith as receiver several months after a receiver had been named for the bank. This article concerns a court dispute over appointment of an additional receiver; indicates bank insolvent and in control of state banking department.
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (2)
1. June 29, 1931 Lincoln Journal Star Lincoln, NE
Article from Lincoln Journal Star, June 29, 1931

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

BANKING DEPARTMENT WINS Supreme Court Says Bank Receiver Controls Mortgaged Property. The banking department won in supreme court Monday, when the tribunal held that where certain mortgaged property of an insolvent bank is already under the control and direction of the department of trade and commerce and has been appointed therefor, a court is without authority to another to the mortgaged property. It holds that the provisions the law the naming of a where mortgaged property is in danger of being materially injured and is insuffient to pay the mortgage debt are inapplicable, where such property with all other assets of an insolvent bank were in the hands of the receiver named to take charge of its affairs and such bank was then under the control and direction of the state department. Arthur A. Foreman, president and principal stockholder of the Farmers State bank of Overton, executed $20,000 mortgage on farm lands to W. A. Wells, the transaction being in essence loan to the bank. Wells brought foreclosure and the lower court named W. R. Smith as receiver several months after a receiver had been named for the bank. As this property was under the latter's control at the time the court says the trial court had no authority to name a second receiver.

2. June 29, 1931 Lincoln Journal Star Lincoln, NE
Article from Lincoln Journal Star, June 29, 1931

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

BANKING DEPARTMENT WINS Supreme Court Says Bank Receiver Controls Mortgaged Property. The banking department won in supreme court Monday, when the tribunal held that where certain mortgaged property of an insolvent bank is already under the control and direction of the department of trade and commerce and a receiver has been appointed therefor, court is without authority to appoint another receiver to manage the mortgaged property. It holds that the provisions of the law authorizing the naming of a receiver where mortgaged property is in danger of being materially injured and is insuffient to pay the mortgage debt are inapplicable, where such property with all other assets an insolvent bank were in the hands of the receiver named to take charge of its affairs and such bank then under the control and direction of the state department. Arthur A. Foreman, president and principal stockholder of the Farmers State bank of Overton, executed $20,000 mortgage on farm lands to W. A. Wells, the transaction being in essence loan to the bank. Wells brought foreclosure proceedings, and the lower court named W. R. Smith as receiver several months after a receiver had been named for the bank. As this property was under the latter's control at the time the supreme court says the trial court had no authority to name a second receiver.