Article Text
HOOD IS NAMED BANK RECEIVER Woodsfield, Jan. Willard Hood of Cambridge has appointed receiver the First National bank Woodsfield CLASSIFIED greatest
17814. First National Bank (Woodsfield, OH)
Bank Information
- Episode Type
- Suspension → Closure
- Bank Type
- national
- Bank ID
- 5414
- Charter Number
- 5414
- Start Date
- January 8, 1934
- Location
- Woodsfield, Ohio (39.763, -81.115)
Metadata
- Model
- gpt-5-mini
- Short Digest
a820e62c
Response Measures
None
Receivership Details
- Depositor recovery rate
- 95.9%
- Date receivership started
- 1934-01-02
- Date receivership terminated
- 1940-01-27
- Share of assets assessed as good
- 53.4%
- Share of assets assessed as doubtful
- 43.2%
- Share of assets assessed as worthless
- 3.4%
Description
Articles report appointment of a receiver in Jan 1934 and later court litigation (1939) naming the receiver. No article describes a depositor run; evidence indicates the bank closed and entered receivership.
Events (4)
1.
June 9, 1900
Chartered
- Source
- historical_nic
2.
January 2, 1934
Receivership
- Source
- historical_nic
3.
January 8, 1934
Receivership
- Newspaper Excerpt
- HOOD IS NAMED BANK RECEIVER Woodsfield, Jan. Willard Hood of Cambridge has appointed receiver the First National bank Woodsfield
- Source
- newspapers
4.
February 23, 1939
Other
- Newspaper Excerpt
- The court of appeals has sustained Judge Carlos M. Riecker in the case of Harry Briggs, receiver of the First National bank, of Woodsfield vs. L. E. Motz of Woodsfield.
- Source
- newspapers
Newspaper Articles (2)
Click image to open full size in new tab
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# JUDGE RIECKER SUSTAINED # BY HIGHER COURT The court of appeals has sustained Judge Carlos M. Riecker in the case of Harry Briggs, receiver of the First National bank, of Woodsfield vs. L. E. Motz of Woodsfield. Action was brought on a promissory note for about $2,500 against defendant. The firm of Motz & Motz had a claim of $2,200 against the bank, which they claimed as a set off against the note. During the trial Judge Riecker ordered the jury to bring in a direct verdict in favor of the bank, holding the claim of defendant against the bank was not a legal one and should not be allowed. The case heard in Woodsfield, was hotly contested, and after Judge Riecker's decision was later carried to the court of appeals, which sustained Judge Riecker's finding.