Eagle Bank - New Haven, CT

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: June 5, 1828
Location: New Haven, Connecticut (41.308, -72.928)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 5d8ad50a

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (1828-06-05) discusses the prior failure of the Eagle Bank in New Haven, describing concealment/misappropriation by directors and injury to stockholders and legislative actions surrounding replacement/incorporation. No contemporaneous run is described; the bank had failed/been suspended and is being discussed in legislature. Date given is the newspaper date; the failure likely preceded this article but no exact failure date is provided.

Events (1)

1. June 5, 1828 Suspension

Cause: Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details: Directors allegedly concealed breaches of trust and appropriated/misapplied funds; criminal allegations and perjury suits referenced.
Newspaper Excerpt: the failure of the Eagle Bank ... he might appropriated. these funds thus All this the had no means have been and Undoubtedly stockholders they injured
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. June 5, 1828 The Litchfield County Post Litchfield, CT

Article from The Litchfield County Post, June 5, 1828

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Connecticut Ligislature. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Bill to prevent the sale of foreign lottery tickets introduced by the Committee. Petition of Wm. D. Foster respecting pay table orders, granted without debate. Much was said respecting this petition last year. Mr. Eaton, the officer over Bill by in levying executions,shall providing that but the when charge officer his fees, the levy shall be valid, shall forfeit threefold the amount of his whole charges, read a second time. Mr. T. S. Perkins respecting nuiswhen the title of question, an be made to ances, Bill by appeal may land &c. the is Superior in Court, read second time. City Bank New-Haven.-Mr. Kibbe moved the bill on the table, as petitions were to be to for lay banks heard; the time other that to Wed- hear nesday next be assigned as them. Mr. T. Pitkin said this was an exception to the for It be added to the would general not principle granting banking stockhold- capital, banks. but a priviledge to the ers in fault for the He wished we now Eagle who extending Bank. were not the might failure of act. with some of is not comMr. them Parish replied guilty either of warmth, acts of of who of omission. The cause the failure is their was that this was claimed as a mission surprise or gross negligence. It favorable From with exception to the general principle. one section of the State of 20,000 inhabit$200,000 banking capital, where are is a petition a has more on ants, many but this and manufactories, company brought for ruin bank all the ever in the He saw no any more in the State. State capital than New-Haven. necessity counterfeiters of If the obto restore the rights to ows and to ject banking and was orphans the College, ruined there widwould be some claim. But no; the rich want an opportunity to make another experiment. Mr. T. Pitkin replied, the committee have examined the claim and reported favorably. If had considered the to blaim would have so. they they said be stockholders the last If they blame, he would one to He would his to the an opportunity to substitute were favor objection, to them. give his therefore charge. gentlemen withdraw Mr. Parish replied, he intended no direct allegation, but the stockholders had not seen so closely to the business as they ought. Mr. Kibbe withdrew his motion. Mr. Kimberly moved, as the house was thin, the bill lie on the table till 2 o'clock, which was carried. a committee to consideration the Resolution for propriety of disfranchising take into Geo. and for a him and the the introduced by & perjury Eagle Hoadly, Bank, against instituting Mr. Cashier Chappell, suit of on motion of Mr. M' Curdy,laid on the table, by a vote of 76 to 50. City Bank in New-Haven.--Mr. Hungerford, from the Committee, spoke at length in favor of granting the Bank. The Bank was to new but the the Bank were to have the taEagle be a one, stockholders privileges owned in of of king as many shares as they that bank; but their shares are but one half as great, so their subscription can be only half the of stock He it was said amount extremely owned unjust in the to that failure transfer Bank. the crime of those concerned in of the Bank, to the stockholders. The committee after a full examination are fully conthat are no censure. vinced, then adverted they deserving the conduct of of He to Mr. that at first was a of trust in any of his small Hoadly official breach proceedings he from concealing the guilty directors; of but he had once it was to go on in after necessary violated farther and this farther trust, order conceal it, constantly in hopes, that at restore taken and clandestinely last to he might appropriated. these funds thus All this the had no means have been and Undoubtedly stockholders they injured, of relief. knowing. if to have some The only is. can relief be them without injury to the ? ought question possible, public The granted committee For, in the banin this city, after esking say, capital yes. first this place bank it the is will not be so great as was before the failure of the Eagle amount of was then now. tablished, capital wanted. Bank. it If that amount of banking is $500,000 while there is $3,000,000! city, The whole only Why capital in should Hartford in there this be there is not in business. it the this difference? nearly Again, is this proposed Bank difference this to transfer the of the to thus save the great institution, and agency Eagle public From the such expense of the present agency. the committee were othis bank to considerations, pinion that ought be incorpora- of the ted. Mr. Chappel moved to amend the bill, so as the directors of the bank, at the time failure, from any in The directors are to for this to bank. of prevent the having banks, blame, note share according to the rules of no can be discounted without the consent of three directors. said, there was a provision in bill to meet their no perMr. the Kimberly objection; failure that of son who had any agency in the the bank, should be allowed to subscribe; and further the previous directors were also much