Manchester Trust Company - Manchester, CT

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: trust
Start Date: January 1, 1933*
Location: Manchester, Connecticut (41.776, -72.521)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: e71fc234fc02526b

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (1934-11-30) states the Manchester Trust Company was a closed 'silk town' bank liquidated under a special act of the 1933 legislature; assets described as frozen and liquidation costs cited. No mention of a depositor run; the bank remained closed and was being liquidated/handled in receivership.

Events (1)

1. January 1, 1933* Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: liquidating the closed Manchester Trust company...under a special act of the 1933 legislature, in liquidating the closed Manchester Trust company.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. November 30, 1934 The Waterbury Democrat Waterbury, CT

Article from The Waterbury Democrat, November 30, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Press Comment STATE CONTROL OF RECEIVERSHIPS (Meriden Journal) Bank receiverships in Connecticut will cease to be juicy in fees if a bill being drown up by James E. Wheeler, prominent New Haven lawyer and member of the state's Judicial council, is adopted by the 1935 general assembly. It will be strongly fortified with facts being gathered by the State Banking department, at the request of the judges of the Superior court, concerning 17 existing bank receiverships in Perry, has already supplied significent data by citing the work of his department, under a special act of the 1933 legisiature, in liquidating the closed Manchester Trust company. It was said that the assets of this "silk town" bank were the most solidly frozen of any which closed in the crash period of three years ago. The cost of liquidating the Manchester bank, according to Mr Perry, has averaged about $4,000 annually. In contrast, a New Haven receivership, instituted in December, 1931, has been in excess of $88,000, or more than $20,000 a year. The Manchester experience has convinced many people that state control of receiverships would be quicker, more efficient and more equitable,