State Bank - Pittsburg, PA

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: March 28, 1908
Location: Pittsburg, Pennsylvania (40.441, -79.996)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: d107957e

Response Measures

None

Description

Articles report the State Bank of Pittsburg became insolvent and a receiver brought suit. No mention of a depositor run or reopening; therefore classified as suspension leading to closure/receivership. The newspaper text spells the city 'Pittsburg' as in the sources.

Events (2)

1. March 28, 1908 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: The bank became insolvent, and the receiver brought an action to recover on the notes.
Source: newspapers

2. March 28, 1908 Suspension

Cause: Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details: Bank became insolvent; receiver was appointed and brought suit to recover bad-debt notes.
Newspaper Excerpt: The bank became insolvent, and the receiver brought an action to recover on the notes.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (3)

1. March 28, 1908 The Cairo Bulletin Cairo, IL

Article from The Cairo Bulletin, March 28, 1908

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# LEGAL DECISIONS Lack of Consideration in Notes Assigned to Bank by its Officers—The liability of bank officers assigning notes to the bank in lieu of bad debts was considered in State Bank of Pittsburg v. Kirk, 65 Atlantic Reporter, 932. The bank became insolvent, and the receiver brought an action to recover on the notes. Defendant set up, among other defenses want of consideration, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that defendant could not now escape liability on the ground that there was no consideration for the notes at their inception.

2. December 26, 1908 The San Juan Islander Friday Harbor, WA

Article from The San Juan Islander, December 26, 1908

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Legal Information In an action for mental suffering caused by the nondelivery of a telegraph message, the law of the place which the contract was made, and in which a part of it was performed, was held to govern, in the case of Johnson vs. W. U. Tel. Co. (Sup. Ct. N. Car.), 57 Southeastern Reporter, 122. No injunction will lie to restrain the transfer of property of one church to another, where they have formed a union. In the case of Mack vs. Kime, 58 Southeastern Reporter, 184, the Georgia Supreme Court held that, although property rights were involved, they rested upon questions of faith and religious tenets, a decision of which by the highest ecclesiastical tribunal would be held to be conclusive. The liability of bank officers assigning notes to the bank in lieu of bad debts was considered in State Bank of Pittsburg vs. Kirk, 65 Atlantic Reporter, 932. The bank became insolvent, and the receiver brought an action to recover on the notes. Defendant set up, among other defenses, want of consideration, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that defendant could not now escape liability on the ground that there was no consideration for the notes at their inception. That ever recurring question, whether recovery may be had under an insurance policy for deaths by suicide, was again adjudicated upon in Davis vs. Supreme Council Royal Arcanum, 81 Northeastern Reporter, 294. Plaintiff contended that insured could not deprive the beneficiary of his rights by misconduct after the issuance of the policy, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the original contract impliedly excepted suicide as a cause of loss, notwithstanding no mention of it was made in the certificate. In Sopher vs. State, 81 Northeastern Reporter, 913, the trial court held that a liquor license under the Indiana License Law did not authorize the sale of intoxicating liquors for the reason that the State license law was unconstitutional, such traffic being dangerous and hurtful to society. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that under the common law any person had a right, without license, to sell intoxicants, and that it was a means of livelihood which any one was free to follow.

3. January 21, 1909 The Nezperce Herald Nezperce, ID

Article from The Nezperce Herald, January 21, 1909

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# Legal Information In an action for mental suffering caused by the nondelivery of a telegraph message, the law of the place which the contract was made, and in which a part of it was performed, was held to govern, in the case of Johnson vs. W. U. Tel. Co. (Sup. Ct. N. Car.), 57 Southeastern Reporter, 122. No injunction will lie to restrain the transfer of property of one church to another, where they have formed a union. In the case of Mack vs. Kime, 58 Southeastern Reporter, 184, the Georgia Supreme Court held that, although property rights were involved, they rested upon questions of faith and religious tenets, a decision of which by the highest ecclesiastical tribunal would be held to be conclusive. The liability of bank officers assigning notes to the bank in lieu of bad debts was considered in State Bank of Pittsburg vs. Kirk, 65 Atlantic Reporter, 932. The bank became insolvent, and the receiver brought an action to recover on the notes. Defendant set up, among other defenses, want of consideration, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that defendant could not now escape liability on the ground that there was no consideration for the notes at their inception. That ever recurring question, whether recovery may be had under an insurance policy for deaths by suicide, was again adjudicated upon in Davis vs. Supreme Council Royal Arcanum, 81 Northeastern Reporter, 294. Plaintiff contended that insured could not deprive the beneficiary of his rights by misconduct after the issuance of the policy, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the original contract impliedly excepted suicide as a cause of loss, notwithstanding no mention of it was made in the certificate. In Sopher vs. State, 81 Northeastern Reporter, 913, the trial court held that a liquor license under the Indiana License Law did not authorize the sale of intoxicating liquors for the reason that the State license law was unconstitutional, such traffic being dangerous and hurtful to society. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that under the common law any person had a right, without license, to sell intoxicants, and that it was a means of livelihood which any one was free to follow.