Farmers State Bank - Winside, NE

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: November 7, 1921
Location: Winside, Nebraska (42.176, -97.175)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: a9e19fb7

Response Measures

None

Description

Newspaper text (Jan 23, 1926) recounts earlier events: bank was in failing condition and placed under state Dept. of Trade and Commerce control on 1921-11-07; attorney general petitioned 1921-12-06 and a receiver was appointed. No run or depositor panic is described. This is a suspension by government action leading to receivership/closure.

Events (2)

1. November 7, 1921 Suspension

Cause: Government Action
Cause Details: Department of Trade and Commerce took control of the bank due to failing condition; state action led to suspension.
Newspaper Excerpt: On and before November 7, 1921, the Farmers State Bank of Winside was in a failing condition. On that date all of the bank's affairs and its assets came under the control of the department of trade and commerce.
Source: newspapers

2. December 6, 1921 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: December 6, 1921, the attorney general filed a petition ... The Winside bank entered its voluntary appearance, confessed the truth of the averments ... and consented that the court appoint a proper person as receiver to perform the duties required by law.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. January 23, 1926 Nebraska Legal News Lincoln, NE

Article from Nebraska Legal News, January 23, 1926

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA JANUARY TERM, 1924. Continued From Last Week) mation in two counts charging defendant with a violation of the liquor laws of the state. The first count charged that on February 16, 1919, on a designated farm in Richardson county, defendant unlawfully had in his possession a still designed for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor; the second count charged that on the same day and on the same premises defendant had in his possession a certain quantity of corn mash, or material, which was designed for and then and there being used in the process of manufacturing and distilling intoxicating liquor, without first having obtained a permit, etc. Prior to the filing of the information, the sheriff had procured to be issued a search warrant describing a farm claimed to be occupied by defendant as a tenant. The warrant was directed against John Doe. At the time alleged in the information, the sheriff and one of his deputies went to the farm and, upon searching the barn and barnyard, found a still and two half barrels of mash; the still was secreted in the hay-loft and the half barrels containing the mash were secreted in the barn-yard. The sheriff found no person on the premises, but after taking into his possesion the still and mash, he went to the village of Stella and there placed defendant under arrest. Defendant filed a plea in abatement based upon section 3274, Comp. St. 1922, which provides, among other things: "If no one is found in the possession of the premises where said liquors may be found, the officer taking the same shall post in a conspicuous place on the building or premises a copy of his warrant." In the plea in abatement it is alleged that the sheriff did not post a copy of the warrant. To the plea in abatement the county attorney filed an answer admitting that the warrant was not posted, but alleging in substance that, although defendant was not personally present upon the premises at the time the search was made, nevertheless he was in possession of the premises within the contemplation of the statute. A jury was waived upon the plea in abatement and the issue submitted to the court, who found against defendant on the issue presented. The hainf does not make clear the importance of this issue, but, we find no prejudicial error in the holding of the cour The next assignment deals with an instruction given by the court in which he told the jury in a single clause that, if they found defendant was in possession of the still and mash, they might presume that they were kept for the unlawful purpose of making intoxicating liquor, unless defendant satisfactorily accounted for and explained his possession. It is said that this instruction makes no distinction between the possession of the still and the mash, and that, under the law, the mere possession of a still is not sufficient to warrant the presumption that it was intended for an unlawful purpose. In support of this proposition counsel cite Blevins v. State, 109 Neb. 183. A careful analysis of that opinion, however, shows that the paragraphs of the syllabus covering the point under discussion merely hold: "In order to constitute the possession of a still unlawful under section 3252, Comp. St. 1922, it must be established that the still was intended to be used for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, without permission being given as required by the statute. The possession of a still for legitimate purposes, such as the manufacture of distilled water, or other innocuous liquids, is not a crime under said section." Section 3273, Comp. St. 1922, provides: "The possession by any person of any intoxicating liquors, still, mash, preparation or equipment for manufacturing same, except under permit as in this act authorized, shall be presumptive evidence of the manufacture, keeping for sale, selling, use or disposal of such liquors in viclation of this act, unless after examination he shall satisfactorily account for and explain the possession thereof, and that it was not kept for an unlawful purpose." It will be noted that in this section of the statute the possession of a still is dealt with in the same terms as is the possession of mash. And in Blevins v. State, supra, it is said: "By the provisions of section 3273, Comp. St. 1922, the possession of mash except under permit, as by law required, is presumptive evidence of the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in violation of the act, unless the person having the same in possession 'satisfactorily account for and explain the possession thereof, and that it was not kept for an unlawful purpose." Extending this rule, as the language of the statute requires, to the possession of a still, it is clear that the instruction was proper. There is the further claim that the evidence is insufficient to show that the substance denominated "mash" was a "mixture of grain or malt," etc. It is true that the proof of the presence of grain or malt in this substance is meagre, however the substance itself was before the jury, and on the examination of the sheriff he was asked about the presence of corn therein. and his answer. when considered in connection with the exhibit before the jury, is sufficient to support a finding that it was mash within the contemplation of the statute. There is the general assignment that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. It may be admitted that, considering the good reputation of the defendant, a reviewing court may entertain doubts of defendant's guilt, but the disputed questions of fact were submitted to the jury, and we cannot say the verdict is wholly without support in the evidence. The judgment is AFFIRMED. Note-See Intoxicating Liquors, 33 C. J. p. 683, sec. 383; p. 758, sec. 502; p. 791, sec. 547. STATE, EX REL. CLARENCE A. DAVIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, V. FARMERS STATE BANK OF WINSIDE: B. N. SAUNDERS, RECEIVER, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT: OMAHA NATIONAL BANK ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES: FRED W. WEIBLE, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLEE. FILED OCTOBER 7, 1924. No. 23567. 1. Equity: FORFEITURE. "The intent, not the letter, of the statute constitutes the law. A court of equity is always reluctant in the last degree to make a decree which will effect a forfeiture." National Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621. 2. Banks and Banking: VOIDABLE CONTRACTS. A contract by a state bank to borrow money in excess of the debt limit authorized by its charter is voidable, and not void; and where such contract has been fully performed, by the lending of money to such state bank and the execution and delivery of notes therefor, the borrowing bank cannot refuse payment of the notes, in the absence of a statute which so provides. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH STATUTE. Where certain restrictions are imposed by statute upon officers of state banks for their government in the borrowing of money, it is not competent for the judiciary, in the absence of a statute therefor, to impose a penalty by forfeiture on the grounds of noncompliance with the statute. APPEAL from the district court for Wayne county: ANSON A. WELCH, JUDGE. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part. Stout, Rose, Wells & Martin and Byron G. Burbank, for appellants. Fred S. Berry, C. M. Skiles and Charles H. Kelsey, contra. Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., LETTON, DEAN, DAY, GOOD, and THOMPSON, JJ. DEAN, J. On and before November 7, 1921, the Farmers State Bank of Winside was in a failing condition. On that date all of the bank's affairs and its assets came under the control of the department of trade and commerce. December 6, 1921, the attorney general filed a petition in the district court for Wayne county upon information from the department of trade and commerce to the effect that, from an examination of the reports made to the department by officers of the Winside bank, it appeared to be inexpedient for it to further transact business as a banking corporation. The Winside bank entered its voluntary appearance, confessed the truth of the averments in the attorney general's petition and consented that the court appoint a proper person as receiver to perform the duties required by law. April 29, 1922, under direction of the department of trade and commerce, the receiver, recently theretofore appointed, began suit against the Omaha National Bank of Omaha, and Fred W. Weible, W. T. Waldron, and L. D. Spalding, being at different times officers and stockholders of the Winside bank, to recover certain collateral obtained by the Omaha bank, and the proceeds thereof, all of which were in possession of and held by the Omaha bank, as security for loans of money made by it to the Winside bank. It appears that the loans were considerably in excess of two-thirds of the capital stock and surplus of the borrowing bank. The receiver prevailed in part, and all defendants appealed, except Mr. Weible. The receiver filed a crossappeal from that part of the judgment which was adverse to him. For several years the Omaha bank has been the Omaha correspondent of the Winside bank, and the latter, as occasion required, became a borrower of money from the Omaha bank, and to secure the payment of such loans, as they were made, it pledged, assigned and delivered its bills payable, and other securities, to the Omaha bank. The promissory notes given for the loans were in large part, if not all of them, signed by Weible, Spalding or Waldron, or other Winside bank officers. The substance of the receiver's contention now is that the Omaha bank unlawfully obtained, and now retains, the bills payable, and the collateral notes and securities, which form the basis of this suit, and which at any time came into its possession, together with all avails and proceeds thereof, as security for the loans in question, and that such collateral, and its proceeds, in excess of two-thirds of the paid-up capital and surplus of the Winside bank. do not belong to the Omaha bank, but lawfully belong to the state of Nebraska for the benefit of the depositors' guarantee fund. Sections 8024-8028, Comp. St. 1922. From the fact that the loans considerably exceeded the amount which the law permitted the Winside bank to borrow, under its charter, it is argued that the collateral given as security, and the proceeds thereof, should therefore be forfeited by the loaning bank, the latter being chargeable with knowledge of the law and of the limitation of the borrowing capacity of the Winside bank under its charter. To support this contention the receiver points out that section 5 of the articles of incorporation of the Winside bank reads: "The highest indebtedness of this corporation shall at no time exceed two-thirds of its paid-up capital except for deposits." (Continued On Page 3)