18744. Bank of Ivanhoe (Ivanhoe, VA)

Bank Information

Episode Type
Suspension → Closure
Bank Type
state
Start Date
February 1, 1927*
Location
Ivanhoe, Virginia (36.840, -80.967)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini
Short Digest
62ff2e1eac6d23d4

Response Measures

None

Description

Articles (1929 and 1931) refer to a receiver for the Bank of Ivanhoe and litigation by the receiver against the Maryland Casualty regarding an alleged February 1927 burglary. There is no mention of a depositor run or reopening; the bank was in receivership, i.e., closed. Exact suspension/receivership date is not specified in the texts, only the alleged robbery date (Feb 1927) and later receiver litigation (1929, 1931).

Events (4)
1. February 1, 1927* Other
Newspaper Excerpt
the alleged robbery of the bank February, 1927.
Source
newspapers
2. April 11, 1929 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
Third Suit of Bank Receiver to Collect Burglary Insurance in Progress
Source
newspapers
3. March 18, 1931 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
VERDICT UPHELD IN IVANHOE CASE ... S. Circuit Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Bank Receiver
Source
newspapers
4. * Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
receiver Bank Ivanhoe against the Casualty being tried the United States Abingdon week.
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (2)
1. April 11, 1929 The Roanoke Times Roanoke, VA
Article from The Roanoke Times, April 11, 1929

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

VANHOE CASHIER TELLS ROBBERY Third Suit of Bank Receiver to Collect Burglary Insurance in Progress SECOND JURY IS DRAWN Witness Is to Have Violated Court Order in Talking to Juror Abingdon, April Huddle, cashier the Bank Ivanhoe, principal witness heard today United States district court Abingdon in the suit bank ceiver the Maryland Casualty institution suing for the which the claims the insurance company the result the alleged robbery of the bank February, 1927. The Maryland refused to the amount bond, claiming not take place as the officials Huddle the details of the told she forced the locked The that she only one during the robJohn H. Huddle, of the the stand, regarding some loans that had been by the Mrs. Huddle first called to the stand her and examination required until today. of the case begun Monday but the jury morning by Judge Henry Clay McDowell when was that the witnesses, had conversation with H. Bowman the jury, contrary drawn yesterday and the rehearing begun. Trial of Mr. Huddle for the alleged violation the rule is scheduled for Friday. Third Trial. April (Special) the receiver Bank Ivanhoe against the Casualty being tried the United States Abingdon week. brought by the receiver the the banking division the Commission collect from the comamount burglary insurpolicy carried by Bank when in ruary. The Casualty Company resisted the claim the third trial been held, both juries trial having failed verdict The located in the village alleged February cashier. the vault where she remained for hours before could be opened. alleged the robbers escaped in closed that officers trace. number Wythe county in case, either or

2. March 18, 1931 The Bushnell Record Bushnell, NE
Article from The Bushnell Record, March 18, 1931

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

VERDICT UPHELD IN IVANHOE CASE S. Circuit Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Bank Receiver Nov. 18 United States court of appeals for the fourth circuit, handed entered the United judgment Court for the Western States District Abingdon April District of Virginia of in the receiver of the Bank the Maryland Casualty Baltimore, the of judgment for was given from May Afthur Pulaski attorney advised today. The attorney was been to whether not would be further appeal to there court. was originally brought in case circuit court county, Federal court. case tried times, the first in mistrials reach verdict. The third trial stopped by Judge Henry McDowell on the second day and jury discharged. Judge McDowell empanelled jury Abingdon business and the trial resulted in verdict for the receiver case was the result of the alleged of the bank of Ivanhoe, located at Wythe county, February 1927. The contention the defendant company was that there no actual robbery. The case has attracted wide spread interest.