First Farmers Bank

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: May 26, 1928
Location: Minot, North Dakota (48.233, -101.296)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 657230ca

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (Bismarck Tribune, 1928-05-26) names L. R. Baird and G. R. Vah Sickle as receivers of First Farmers Bank of Minot, indicating the bank was placed in receivership (i.e., closed and in liquidation/receivership). The article is a court opinion regarding claims against the bank/receiver; it does not describe a prior run or a temporary suspension/reopening. Therefore classified as suspension_closure (suspension/closure with receiver). No explicit cause of suspension given in the article.

Events (1)

1. May 26, 1928 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: L. R. Baird, as Receiver of First Farmers bank of Minot, a corporation, and G. R. Vah Sickle, as Receiver of First Farmers bank of Minot, a corporation, Defendants and Appellants.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. May 26, 1928 The Bismarck Tribune Bismarck, Mandan, ND

Article from The Bismarck Tribune, May 26, 1928

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Hans Nybakken and Karen Nybakken. Plaintiffs and Respondents, vs. L. R. Baird, as Receiver of First Farmers bank of Minot, a corporation, and G. R. Vah Sickle, as Receiver of First Farmers bank of Minot, a corporation, Defendants and Appellants. 1. In an action brought to quiet title where the defendant set up a mortgage lien given to secure notes for which the original consideration was a stock subscription, the plaintiffs replied, alleging that the subscription was made in reliance upon false representations as to the dividend paying qualities of the stock and failures of consideration consisting in the fact that the stock had not been delivered. The evidence is examined an it is held: (a) To support the finding of the trial court to the effect that the subscription was induced by false representations relied upon by the plaintiffs; (b) To support the finding of the trial court to the effect that the false representations were known to both the original payee of he note and the transferee, the bank of which the defendant is receiver; (c) To support the finding of the trial court to the effect that the false representations were known to both the original payee of the note and the transferee, the bank of which the defendant is receiver; (c) To support the finding that the subscriber did not become aware of the falsity of the representations until about the time of the commencement of this action. 2. Where renewal notes are given in ignorance of the falsity of representations, in reliance upon which the original obligation was assumed, the maker is not precluded from asserting his defense when the renewal notes are sought to be enforced against him. 3. Under Section 4529 of the Compiled Laws of 1913, the capital stock of a corporation can not legally be issued before the payment of a note given "in settlement, when paid". 4. Where the maker of a note is not shown to have executed the same for the accomodation of the payee bank nor for the purpose of enabling the bank to make a better showing of assets to the public examiner, the receiver of the bank stands in no better position with respect to the obligation than the bank itself. (Syllabus by the Court). Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Hon. John C. Lowe, Judge. Affirmed. Opinion of the Court by Birdzell, J. McGee & Goss, for Appellants. E. R. Sinkler and G. O. Brekke, for Respondents.