Bank of Lawrenceville - Lawrenceville, VA

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: March 1, 1933*
Location: Lawrenceville, Virginia (36.758, -77.847)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 033c5d4f

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (Richmond News Leader, 1933-06-10) says the Bank of Lawrenceville closed with the March 1933 banking holiday, briefly reopened on a restricted basis after the holiday, but subsequently had to abandon the restricted reopening and did not resume normal operations. No explicit mention of a receivership in the excerpt. Classified as suspension_closure because the bank suspended with the banking holiday and did not successfully reopen.

Events (3)

1. March 1, 1933* Reopening

Newspaper Excerpt: bank in Lawrenceville reopened restricted basis after the bank holiday, but subsequently had to abandon this.
Source: newspapers

2. March 6, 1933 Suspension

Cause: Government Action
Cause Details: Closed with the nationwide banking holiday declared in March 1933; suspended operations at that time.
Newspaper Excerpt: bank in Lawrenceville reopened restricted basis after the bank holiday, but subsequently had to abandon this.
Source: newspapers

3. June 10, 1933 Other

Newspaper Excerpt: but subsequently had to abandon this. has been allowed sixty days in which to work out its the commission that granted this turned deaf ear depositors who represented approximately one-third of the money tied up in the American bank. ... In the Lawrenceville case, the capital of the bank was not destroyed its stockholders are developing plan of operations. Locally, he says, there was great clamor for very responsible interests, and there no co-ordination among depositors. We assume he would add, general, that here large capital and surplus were lost and in the other instances they only impaired. this satisfactory explanation? ... In the Lawrenceville case, the capital of the bank was not destroyed ... the corporation commission refused to grant even one period of sixty days, or thirty days, or fifteen days, in which to perfect reorganization. Why? bank in Lawrenceville reopened restricted basis after the bank holiday, but subsequently had to abandon this.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. June 10, 1933 The Richmond News Leader Richmond, VA

Article from The Richmond News Leader, June 10, 1933

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

WHY THESE state bank in Petersburg closed with the banking holiday and has not reopened. The corporation has not moved for petitioned the for receivers for the American bank court in Richmond. Why? bank in Hampton has been unable to and has been given two periods of open each in which to work out organization, but in the case of $22,000,000 bank in Richmond, the corporation commission refused to grant even one period of sixty days, or thirty days, or fifteen days, in which to perfect reorganization. Why? bank in Lawrenceville reopened restricted basis after the bank holiday, but subsequently had to abandon this. has been allowed sixty days in which to work out its the commission that granted this turned deaf ear depositors who represented approximately one-third of the money tied up in the American bank. Why? We have put these questions to the chief of the banking division. He says, in planation, that in Petersburg the affected interests are working together, whereas in Richmond they were divided. The Petersburgers, he says, are developing definite He not think this could be said plan. of Richmond. The only distinction he draws between the Hampton bank and the American that the former was not taking special accounts after the bank holiday and working definite plan of reorganization, whereas the examiner points out that the Richmond institution was taking special accounts and, he reiterates, had definite of reorganization. In the Lawrenceville case, the capital of the bank was not destroyed its stockholders are developing plan of operations. Locally, he says, there was great clamor for very responsible interests, and there no co-ordination among depositors. We assume he would add, general, that here large capital and surplus were lost and in the other instances they only impaired. this satisfactory explanation? Does in with the statement made yesterday the examiner that he did not think amendments to section of the code passed in 1932 were ever intended stitute for the liquidation of If they were why were they invoked Hampton?