Bank of Omaha - Omaha, NE

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: May 30, 1891
Location: Omaha, Nebraska (41.259, -95.938)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 9fa2cee1

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (Omaha Daily Bee, 1891-05-30) reports that a receiver will be appointed for the Bank of Omaha because of alleged fraud and property 'spirited away.' No run is described; the bank is being placed in receivership by the court and will remain closed. Date of reporting used as event date.

Events (2)

1. May 30, 1891 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: Whoever is appointed to the position of receiver will not only be expected to look after the interests of the public ... Monday morning the appointment will be made and the party so appointed will be required to give bonds in the sum of $40,000 ... having had his fill of this line of business in settling up the affairs of the Bank of Omaha . . . the appointment of Coburn and will drop the fight if he is named by the court .
Source: newspapers

2. May 30, 1891 Suspension

Cause: Government Action
Cause Details: Court-ordered suspension leading to appointment of a receiver due to discovered fraudulent transactions and missing property.
Newspaper Excerpt: this morning when Judge Wakeley went upon the bench to deliver his opinion in the case he intimated that an investigation reveals the fact that in the management of the company not only the public has been imposed upon, but a large amount of property has been spirited away.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. May 30, 1891 Omaha Daily Bee Omaha, NE

Article from Omaha Daily Bee, May 30, 1891

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

one who will be satisfactory to the court. In this connection William Coburn is the man who undoubtedly will be selected. though he does not want the job, having had his fill of this line of business in settling up the affairs of the Bank of Omaha. This morning when Judge Wakeley went upon the bench to deliver his opinion in the case he intimated that an investigation reveals the fact that in the management of the company not only the public has been imposed upon, but a large amount of property has been spirited away. Whoever is appointed to the position of receiver will not only be expected to look after the interests of the public, but he will also be expected to investigate the fraudulent transactions and prosecute the guilty parties to the full extent of the law. For this reason no man who has ever been connected with the company should act as receiver. Monday morning the appointment will be made and the party so appointed will be required to give bonds in the sum of $40,000, which may be increased should it become necessary. The position is not regarded as a snap, as there is a vast amount of work in sight which will require months to clear up and get out of the way. Both the state and the insurance company people will be satisfied with the appointment of Coburn and will drop the fight if he is named by the court. In Judge Davis' court the case of E. T. Ringer vs J. B. Patterson is on trial. Ringer is suing to collect a commission that he was to have for seiling certain real estate. In Judge Wakeley's room the equity docket will be called next Monday morning. Before Judge Estelle, the case against Ed Hocksheimer, who IS charged with forgery was called and continued until Monday. At 5 o'clock last night the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Joseph Houfek, who was charged with bastardy. Attachment suits have been commenced against William Darst & Co., the liquor dealers who failed. James Levy & Bro. have sued for $1,152 and W. W. Johnson for $1,500. The jurors who are not engaged on cases now on trial were discharged last night and the second division of the 180 men who were summoned three weeks ago will report for duty next Monday morning. None of the courts will be in session today. The court call for Monday is as follows: BEFORE JUDGE,ESTELLE, CRIMINAL(DEPARTMENT. State vs John Cedarquist. incest. State VS John Dwyer. murder. State vs Ed Hockschimer. forgery. State vs Frank Bruce, burgiary. BEFORE JUDGE DAVIS. 17-138-John W. Conner VS Omaha National bank. 18-129-Joseph Kennody vs City of Omaha. 18-I32-William Paxton VS City of Omaha. 18-144-Christian Hansen vs Andrew B. Gram et al. 18-236-George W. Smith vs Omaha & Council Bluffs railway and bridge company. 18-23-Margaret J. Elliott vs David M. Haverly al. 18-291-Victor Lawson VS Philip Worm et al. 17-276-Coutant & Squires vs Omaha T. C. m anufacturing company. BEFORE JUDGE FERGUSON. 16-174-Charles W. White vs Spencer Otis. 17-355-David E. Thompson vs Omaha National bank. 18-12-W. B. Hamilton vs Home Fire insurancecompany. 12-24-James E. Van Gilder VS Samuel Crosby. 17-250-Samuel Elkins vs Omaha street railway. 17-220-Robert E. Kuhnys George Karil, constable. 18-47-T. S. Nealis ys Omaha and Grant smelting and refining ederpany. 18-56-C. W. Smith vs Joseph M. Rigour et al. 18-110-John Jels VS Mary Aster. 18-122-Anna M. Kennedy vs City of Omaha. 17-308-Willian H. Thomas vs Frank B. Johnson. BEFORE JUDGE IRVINE 17-100-Charles H. Olsen, admr. vs Max Meyer. 17-101-Charles H. Olsen.admr. vs Max Meyer. 17-237-Thateher manufacturing company vs Otto Steuben et al. 17-72-1. E. Darlingtows McLoud-Love live stock commission company. 17-136-Annie McGavock vs city of Omaha. 36-374-Carrie A. Borden vs Charles C. Sherwood. DEFORE JUDGE DOANE. 18-40-John M. Wilson'et al VS Spencer E. Blake et al. 18-83-Ben Reed VS Luke P. Snikey et al. 18-119-August Liesel Lars Hansen et al. 18-198-William Cummig vs John F. Coots et al. 18-275-Patrick land company VS Anna J Fitch et al. 18-370-G. D. Wyatt vs Goodrich Hall association. 18-307-David H. Lewis vs Albert Long. 18-327-Central investment company vs Frank E. Gould. 18-330-R. L. Garlich VS M. Donnelly et all 18-352-Guion et al vs B. M. Nicholson et al. 18-356-M. S. sturgeon VS E. Timmes et al. 18-396-M. L. Disbrow & Co. VS Nels O. Brown et al. 15-398-Frank B. Kennedy va o A. Stonehill, BEFORE JUDGE HOPEWELL 17-332-F. M. Phillips vs Charles R. Cushman et al. 18-73-Fannie Sloman VS W. H. Spellman. 18-113-W. N. Allen vs E. A. Leavenworth al. 11-115-W. N. Allen vs E. A. Leavenworth et al. 17-331-F. M. Phillips vs Charles R. Cushman et al. 17-333-P. M. Phillips VS E. J. Cory et al. 18-174-A. Meyer vs O. C. Spotswood. 18-185-Guy O. Barton vs John N Case et al. 18-199-Crane company vs Pat McDonald