First National Bank

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: national
Bank ID: 9931
Charter Number: 9931
Start Date: *
Location: Como, Texas (33.061, -95.472)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: df32045b

Response Measures

None

Receivership Details

Depositor recovery rate: 100.0%
Date receivership started: 1916-03-07
Date receivership terminated: 1917-04-23
OCC cause of failure: Losses
Share of assets assessed as good: 43.7%
Share of assets assessed as doubtful: 33.9%
Share of assets assessed as worthless: 22.4%

Description

Article discusses the failure of the First National Bank of Como, Texas (referred to as 'failure' and 'defunct') and court actions concerning stockholder assessments ordered by the Comptroller. No mention of a depositor run or temporary suspension/reopening; the bank is treated as failed/defunct and assessments/receivership-type actions are discussed. OCR errors in article were present but bank name and location are clear.

Events (5)

1. February 11, 1911 Chartered

Source: historical_nic

2. March 7, 1916 Receivership

Source: historical_nic

3. * Other

Newspaper Excerpt: An issue of $500 stock was questioned... The comptroller ... ordered an assessment ... jury instructed verdict ... principal $98.35 ... interest $1,410.85.
Source: newspapers

4. * Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: The comptroller of the United States ordered an assessment par the stockholders to pay against treasury bank... the defunct to pay on the $500 Morris. ... depositors of the defunct ... assessment ordered by the comptroller of the United States was to be paid by the stockholders of the failed bank.
Source: newspapers

5. * Suspension

Cause Details: Bank failure leading to Comptroller-ordered assessment of stockholders and legal actions; indicates insolvency/closure.
Newspaper Excerpt: The next case taken up was that involving the failure of the First Na tional Bank of Como, Texas.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. October 12, 1917 The Daily Ardmoreite Ardmore, OK

Article from The Daily Ardmoreite, October 12, 1917

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

MARSHALL LOSES IN FEDERAL COURT MADILL OIL AND COTTON COM PANY AWARDED $2,788.50 IN TAX SUIT. COMO BANK CASE John H. Wells of Purcell, Fails in Defense of Litigation Involving Stock of Failed Texas Bank--Koozer Case Is Disposed of The Madill Oil & Cotton company is to recover $2,788.50 from Marshall county as the result of its suit in Federal court. This decision was rendered by Judge Ralph S. Campbell late yesterday. at this conclusion, Judge held that the court Campbell In arriving had jurisdiction in the case; that the property. valued at its worth $30,000 net, which was only was capital including stock, the real estate, valued at $15,714.00 The taxation of the latter was not involved, to so there was left only $14,206.00 taxed. The amount allowed to be taxed on valuation was the county levy mills, the city of and the 2 which limit this 1-8 five of mills. mills, seven included school the levy levy extra limit of y. This total tax amounted to $435.51, as the company had paid $3,200. the >rence is ordered Jo be, refunded by the county. held that Judge Campbell mills the county levy of eighty or more was excessive and not collectable. as was the extra city levy. and that the latter it had not been properly levied. or if had, the record did not show it. The evidence showed that the Madill Oil & Cotton company was capitalized at $68,000 and sold for $55,000. from which an indebtedness of $25,000 or more was to be deducted. and that the company lost $40,000 in 1915. County Attorney Sneed secured suspension of the execution of the order of the court for sixty days until he could confer with the county commissioners of Marshall county. to see whether any further legal steps would be taken to resist the refunding of the tax collected. Como Bank Case. The next case taken up was that involving the failure of the First Na tional Bank of Como, Texas. An issue of $500 stock was questioned. On motion of attorney for the plain tiff, Judge Campbell instructed the jury a verdict in the sum of principal, $98.35. a total of and tiff to return in interest favor $1.410.85. of $1,312.50 plainto the failure of stock was $25,000. John $40,000 the Previous capital to reduced H. the the Wells bank from of held $1,300 of reduced amounted Morris, the $800. which Purcell, when One Okla., cashier, to stock, about owed by which was stock owned by about January 1. $500 ris Wells resigned of $1,250. Morris. Wells, secured 1916. he Mor- and soon after, according to re ceived $500 in stock issued in his name This, he later returned to the bank at Como. The stock. however, bore a date six months earlier than its receipt by Wells. The comptroller of the United States ordered an assessment par the stockholders to pay against treasury bank. of Wells the depositors of the defunct to pay on the $500 Morris. but to pay assessment on him refused by the $800 offered stock sent hi is against Wells for this on the $500. It was a assessment The suit sworn: jury trial. and the following were C Cross. P. Watson. J. M. Kincade, C. T. Reno. James Cruce. F. W. den. H. W. A. Kembel, Hulen, Grant Calloway C. Bow- T C. C. Helm, W. I. State Court case of Chas. H. Williams, In Judgment the Sustained. Koozer vs Mary Koozer, an action for ejectment, Koozer had made a deed to his father before he had a legal right to do so he married and his wife sued and alimony. dismiss the divorce of alimony. to wife for in Later, settlement divorce to Koozer To suit deed get agreed and his have his father execute a his to wife to the land in question. pretending to his wife that the deed was The wife accepted the proposi- the entered into Charles H. land. valid. tion and Later, possession Koozer attempted of made deed to the land and ejectment suit district court. That Curtain possession another by court in action held Mc. was estopped from any he make a for the land. and his that and wife ordered he that of in the case deed court he to did not do so the order would suffice as a deed, the court hold in title to the ing that land Charles passed the agreement made between H. of and his wife, in dismissal and dismissal of this view of Campbell divorce Koozer held alimony. the McCurtain case Judge and sustained the decision of the county district court The land in controversy is worth al $3 000. It was the surplus of Charles H. Choctaw eitizen. At the lotmeht about eighth father. Koozer, time his one- re he made the deed to his not been removed. and P the deed was therefore strictions had invalid. the P At the time Koozer made agree di with his wife his restrictions p fl jury was II been ment The removed. petit excused this at had af 10 ternoon until Monday morning