Central Park Savings Bank

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: savings bank
Start Date: March 7, 1880
Location: New York, New York (40.714, -74.006)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: cb72d934

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (New-York Tribune, 1880-03-07) discusses the bank as insolvent and refers to Marcus T. Hun as receiver of the Central Park Savings Bank and a suit by the receiver to recover funds. No run or depositors' agitation is mentioned; the bank was insolvent and in receivership, implying suspension and permanent closure. OCR small errors corrected (e.g., 'SavHaga' -> 'Savings').

Events (2)

1. March 7, 1880 Other

Newspaper Excerpt: After the bank became insolvent the receiver brought the suit to recover this $29,250, charging that the defendants were guilty of derelletion of duty
Source: newspapers

2. March 7, 1880 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: suit of Marcus T. Hun, as receiver of the Central Park Savings Bank, against John T. Cary and other trustees of the bank
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. March 7, 1880 New-York Tribune New York, NY

Article from New-York Tribune, March 7, 1880

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

RESPONSIBILITY OF TRUSTEES. THE CENTRAL PARK SAVINGS BANK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT. The decision of the Supreme Court, General Term, which has just been handed down in the suit of Marcus T. Hun, as receiver of the Central Park SavHaga Bank, against John T. Cary and other trustees of the bank 18 important as limiting the powers of such trustees in certain instances. The defendant trustees bought a number of open lots on Third-ave., paying therefor $71,500. Subsequently they sold a portion of the property for a sum sufficient to make the cost of that which remained $29,250, and upon this latter property the trustees built the bank building. After the bank became insolvent the receiver brought the suit to recover this $29,250, charging that the defendants were guilty of derelletion of duty in expending so large a sum of money in real estate on which to build the bank building, and that they had thus abused the power in their hands Judgment was recovered in Circutt in favor of the plantiff The General Term sustains the judgment. Justice Barrett. who writes the opinion. says that under the circumstances this was an extraordinary transaction. To talk of is as an error of judgement 18 idle. It BHOWS the heighth of imprudence and indicates a rash and speculative spirit. Some of the trustees pleaded bankruptcy, The General Term holds that this does not relieve them from the Hability, 10 being for unliquidated damages arising from tort. The judgment, however, is reversed as to Philip Smith, one of the trustees who was not present at the meeting when the action in ques. tion was taken.