Artisans Bank - New York, NY

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: January 1, 1865*
Location: New York, New York (40.714, -74.006)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: c98ae1b2

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (Dec 21, 1867) describes the Receiver of the Artisans' Bank (appointed earlier) accounting to the court, an injunction restraining the Receiver, allegations of mismanagement and recommendation to remove the Receiver. This indicates the bank was in receivership (closed) rather than a run or temporary suspension and remained under receiver control.

Events (2)

1. January 1, 1865* Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: In 1865 the stockholders of The Artisans' Bank obtained an order that the Receiver, Henry C. Tanner, should account before the Hon. Samuel Jones, referee, and also an injunction restraining the Receiver from disposing of the assets then in his possession without permission from the Court.
Source: newspapers

2. December 21, 1867 Other

Newspaper Excerpt: The Receiver's motion to vacate the injunction 6 was denied by Judge Ingraham, with leave to renew; stockholders allege large portions of the trust fund expended by the Receiver and excessive payments to attorney.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. December 21, 1867 New-York Tribune New York, NY

Article from New-York Tribune, December 21, 1867

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

LAW INTELLIGENCE, THE CIVIL COURTS. Joba C. Fremont has instituted a snit in the Buy.eme Court against the Union Pacific Railway Company, Eastern Division, and others. The facts were developed yesterday in the Special Term before Justice James, as follows: Mr. Fremont alleges that some time in 1863 or 1864 he was the owner of a majority of the capital stock of defendants (the Railway Company), amounting to about $6,000,000, par value; and that while owning the stock he entered into a contract with said Company, a firm of Ross, Steel & Co. and Edward Learned: and that in pursuance of said contract, he delivered up the stock to Learned, but with the alleged restriction that Learned should not part with the stock until plaintiff was paid the sum of $225,000. Plaintiff further alleges that Learned has broken the contract by selling this stock without the payment to him, as provided, and he now brings suit to aunul the contract and have the stock redelivered to him. On the other hand, Learned denies that he sold the stock, acting for the purpose as agent of plaintiff, and upon plaintiff's express instructions to sell the same in the manner he did. Another of the defendants, whom Fremont claims has actual possession of the stock, demurs to plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that Ross, Steel & Co. should have been made parties to the suit, and also that the complaint does not state facts suficient to constitute a cause of action. The case was before the court yesterday on argument of this demurrer. The Judge reserved his decision. In the New-York Supreme Court, Chambers, before Justice Ingraham, the petition of Samuel Sinclair and others, for an accounting of the Receiver of the Artisans' Bank, was considered. In 1865 the stockholders of The Artisans' Bank obtained an order that the Receiver, Henry C. Tanner, should account before the Hon. Samuel Jones, referee, and also an injunction restraining the Receiver from disposing of the assets then in his possession without permission from the Court. Since that time the accounting has proceeded, the Receiver from time to time obtaining modifications of the injunction, which enabled him to make collections for the fund, under the direction of the Court. The case now comes up on the Receiver's motion to vacate the injunction, sustained by his affidavit alleging that the accounting was concluded, and that, in the testimony taken before the referee, the petitioners had failed entirely to prove the state of facts alleged in their petition, on which the injunction was obtained. The motion was opposed by the stockholders, who showed by affidavit that the accounting was not completed, but only brought down to February 27, 1867, while large nominal assets remain in the Receiver's hands, and he has various unadjusted bills to meet; that the testimony taken before the referee discloses precisely the state of facts alleged in the petition, namely, that the Receiver had expended a large portion of the trust fund in his possession in paying himself and in making advances to his attorney on account of his exorbitant bills, which will amount to about $50,000, and which had not been legally examined or allowed; that if this injunction was removed, the whole of the trust fund might be at once swallowed up in the same way, and the stockholders additionally assessed; that on these accounts, and by reason of the general mismanagement disclosed in the testimony, the referee had been asked to recommend the removal of the Receiver; that this injunction in no way interfered with the efforts of the Receiver to realize from the assets, but, on the contrary, that the stockholders had often offered and were still ready to assist him in this, in every legitimate way. On the state of facts thus brought before the Court, Judge Ingraham at once denied the motion, with leave to renew.