Scranton City Bank - Scranton, PA

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: *
Location: Scranton, Pennsylvania (41.409, -75.662)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: b66e964b

Response Measures

None

Description

Article discusses the aftermath of a prior failure of the Scranton City Bank: references an assignee (Gunster), cashier Jessup's indebtedness, and efforts to raise funds to pay depositors. No run is described; the bank had failed and an assignee/receiver is involved, indicating permanent closure/receivership rather than a temporary suspension and reopening.

Events (2)

1. * Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: Assignee Gunster was the last witness heard, and when his testimony relating to certain accounts in the books, was heard the case closed and the attorneys prepared to argue law points.
Source: newspapers

2. * Suspension

Cause: Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details: Failure attributable to cashier Jessup's indebtedness and mismanagement (bad notes/loans) that wrecked the bank; directors and depositors attempted to raise funds to cover liabilities.
Newspaper Excerpt: He was shown the assignment of $25,000 by Dr. B. H. Throop after the bank failed
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. November 15, 1895 The Scranton Tribune Scranton, PA

Article from The Scranton Tribune, November 15, 1895

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# JESSUP CASE IS ENDING Charge of Judge McPherson Will Be Made This Morning. # ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY Major Everett Warren Closed Case for Defendants and Attorney S. B. Price, for Plaintiffs-Jury Warned Not to Consider Case Until Judge Speaks. Major Everett Warren made the ar- gument to the jury in the Jessup case and Attorney S. B. Price argued on the side of the plaintiff. Judge McPherson will charge the jury this morning and in speaking to the jury at adjournment and requesting them to be in their places promptly at 9 o'clock this morn- ing, he bade them to not only not speak to any person or among them- selves about the case, or even to con- sider it in their minds until after they hear the charge of the court. Attorney W. J. Tracey was called by the defendant yesterday morning. Ten years ago he was a member of the firm of Hamlin & Tracey, of the Wayne county bar. The Scranton City bank sent to the firm a note to collect drawn by E. M. Lancaster and endorsed by W. J. Keisel. The money was to be collected from Kelsel as Lancaster had failed. Mr. Tracey remembered that the note was not collected because the endorser had no money or property. This is one of the notes that Assignee Gunster has charged to the indebted- ness of Cashier Jessup. Ex-Judge Jessup was recalled in ref- erence to the $10,000 certificate of de- posit of Mr. Beardslee. The latter had a judgment of $10,000 against Mr. Dolph and assigned it to John H. Fel- lows, who gave his check for the same amount to Mr. Jessup as attorney for Mr. Beardslee. The check was placed in the Third National bank and Mr. Beardslee got a certificate of deposit. Ex-Justice Hand was called to the stand in relation to another note. Know Nothing About It. Attorney Merrifield was called in di- rect examination by the defendant. Major Warren handed him a paper signed by Charles Tropp, the substance of which was that Cashier Jessup's in- debtedness had been satisfactorily ar- ranged and that in consequence the directors had entered a nolle prosequi to the action brought against the cash- ier in criminal court for wrecking the bank. Mr. Merrifield did not know anything about the paper. He was shown the assignment of $25,- 000 by Dr. B. H. Throop after the bank failed and said that his impression of the account to which this amount was intended to be put was not to reduce the cashier's indebtedness, but the lia- bility of the directors. The deed of trust for the sale of the coal lands was offered in evidence. The minutes of the bank of April 4, 1882, were then offered in evidence and read to show that the bank had specially em- powered Mr. Jessup to discount any pa- per he considered good, and that the bank was liable for Mr. Jessup's errors of judgment, and therefore that Mr. Jessup's bondsmen should not pay these bad notes. The defendants rested and the plain- tiffs called W. C. Conwell in rebuttal. He testified that Dr. Throop was a large depositor of the Scranton City bank, and that it was mutually ar- ranged between the doctor and the other directors that he would pay in $25,000 to help square up accounts with the depositors, and that this money would be regarded as relieving him from any further liability as a director of the bank. Paper That He Signed. The witness was a member of the depositors' committee of the bank, and he said he did not sign any paper to the effect that the affairs of Cashier Jessup were satisfactorily arranged. He signed a paper agreeing to release the cashier from liability to criminal pros- ecution for wrecking the bank, but he did not think that such a paper was a waiver of all debts and liabilities of Mr. Jessup or his bondsmen to the bank. Assignee Gunster was the last wit- ness heard, and when his testimony re- lating to certain accounts in the books, was heard the case closed and the at- torneys prepared to argue law points. In the afternoon the arguments to the jury began. Major Warren's argument to the jury was an exhaustive review of the evi- dence and the law applying to the lia- bility of debtors in cases similar to the one tried. He maintained that the defendants had proven that Mr. Jes- sup's indebtedness to the bank had been all satisfactorily arranged, and that no further liabilities exist for which the bondsmen are responsible. According to the assignee the in- debtedness of the bank when it failed was $140,000. Of this amount there had been raised from the sale of Mr. Jes- sup's coal lands, $73,000. The money which Dr. Throop set aside in the $25,- 000 from his deposits in the bank for the benefit of the depositors was that much off the liabilities of the cashier. Major Warren summed up the various amounts that were applied from time to time on the liabilities of the cashier and showed that more than $140,000 had been raised and that there now exists no such disparity as $38,000 yet to be accounted for. Argument for the Plaintiff. Attorney Price's argument for the plaintiff was no less comprehensive than that of the defendants' counsel, and it covered every detall of the case. It was devoid of any attempt to work on the minds of the jurors, but was a logical and convincing presentation of the evidence. He maintained that the defendants are responsible for the mak- ing good of $38,000 due on the indebted- ness of Cashier Jessup to the bank and that the $25,000 assigned by Dr. Throop from his deposits was not a part of the contribution to the wiping out of the cashier's llability to the bank.