Union Bank - New York, NY

Bank Information

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

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 67325088

Response Measures

None

Description

Article is courtroom testimony about improper loans, favored borrowers, and pending claims against the Union Bank. It references that the Union Bank had closed previously; no contemporaneous run is described. The evidence points to a failure/closure connected to bank-specific bad lending and insider dealings rather than a depositor run.

Events (1)

1. * Suspension

Cause: Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details: Court testimony describes inadequate loans, substituted claims, favored borrowers, and other questionable lending practices implying insolvency or mismanagement leading to closure.
Newspaper Excerpt: Tonkonogy declined to answer many questions in regard to his bill for $35,000 for services against the Union Bank. His claim is pending in the courts at present, and testimony he gave in that regard might tend to prejudice the action... before it had closed.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. September 9, 1911 New-York Tribune New York, NY

Article from New-York Tribune, September 9, 1911

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

all right, as the bank owned the Ashford Company, and he (Sullivan) would look after it. Gave Note for $87,500. Mr Riemer told about another note for $87,500 which the Ashford Company made to the bank at Mr. Sullivan's request, purporting to cover the indebtedness of the company to the bank. The bank gave nothing of value to the Ashford Company for this note, the witness said. The bank afterward substituted a lot of old claims for this note, and the witness was asked by Mr. Sullivan to look up some of them, he said. One was for $15,000 or more. lent to a woman on property in West 65th street, Manhattan, Mr. Riemer said. The security was wholly inadequate, he said in answer to question by Mr. Cropsey, and the loan might as well have been made on a promissory note. It was made on a third or fourth mortgage, he said. "I told Sullivan he ought to have been ashamed of himself to make such loans," the witness said. The witness said a sanatorium was being conducted in the West 65th street houses. He did not see the woman who obtained the loan when he went to look at the property, he said, but she came to his office the next morning and told him "a yarn" about Sullivan; he couldn't remember just what it was all about. Ernest W. Hyland, who described himself as a real estate agent, testified that he had acted as messenger for President Sullivan of the Mechanics and Traders' Bank in No. vember, 1907. and had delivered $25,000 in cash for him to the bank examiner in charge of the defunct Hamilton Bank, which had closed during the panie. The Sullivan bank closed in January, 1908, it appeared. He was to get some notes in exchange for the money, the witness said, and that was all he could remember about it. B. R. Shears. who was the examiner in charge of the Hamilton Bank, followed Hyland on the witness stand, and though he did not remember Hyland's call at the bank, he established the fact from the Bank Department's records that $25,000 had been paid on November 6, 1907, on a note of David A. Sullivan for $100,000. dated June 27, 1907, which Sullivan had with the Hamilton Bank. Tilts with Tonkonogy. Mr. Cropsey recalled George Tonkonogy, the lawyer. who acted as counsel for the Atlantic branch of the Mechanics and Traders' Bank. in the old days, before the smashup came. Tonkonogy proved to be recalcitrant witness. and came back at his inquisitor frequently with sharp retorts. He declined to answer many questions in regard to his bill for $35,000 for services against the Union Bank. His claim is pending in the courts at present, and testimony he gave in that regard might tend to prejudice the action, he explained. Mr. Cropsey pressed the witness to ascertain if he had talked about his claim with E. M. Grout, president of the Union Bank, or presented it to any one connected with the bank before it had closed. "I came here to be as obliging as possible," said Tonkonogy, in declining to answer the questions, "but you don't have to coax me." "I thought perhaps you might be more obliging if I coaxed you enough," said Mr. Cropsey. It developed that George Weiner, the witness's brother-in-law, who was a favored borrower at the Union Bank, according to previous testimony, held a mortgage on the property which Tonkonogy owned and where he maintained his office. Tonkonogy said he might have made the mortgage to Weiner for some good reason while the latter was acting as his confidential clerk. "Every one has confidential clerks," the witness suggested. "Yes, we have found that out here," Mr. Cropsey commented. "Yes, you will find confidential clerks in many institutions, and with many men at this very minute," retorted Tonkonogy, and, pointing his finger at Cropsey, he added: "You have confidential clerks yourself." The demurrer entered in behalf of David A. Sullivan to the indictment charging for-