Vermont Investment & Guarantee Company

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: private
Start Date: January 1, 1895*
Location: Orwell, Vermont (43.804, -73.298)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 4ec09010

Response Measures

None

Description

The company passed into the hands of ex-Gov. Ormsbee as receiver in 1895 and has been in receivership since; the 1899 article discusses ongoing litigation to enforce stockholders' double liability. No run or reopening is described; this is a failed institution in receivership.

Events (2)

1. January 1, 1895* Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: The Vermont Investment and Guarantee company of Orwell passed into the hands of ex Gov. Ormsbee as receiver in '95, who has been since the failure engaged in collecting the assets.
Source: newspapers

2. February 3, 1899 Other

Newspaper Excerpt: The Barton bank and a number of other creditors begun last spring a suit in equity against stockholders residing in Vermont to enforce a double liability of stockholders as provided in the charter. There are about 100 of these stockholders joined in the suit and about $150,000 is in controversy.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. February 3, 1899 Middlebury Register Middlebury, VT

Article from Middlebury Register, February 3, 1899

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

More Vermont Investment Co. Litigation. The Vermont Investment and Guarantee company of Orwell passed into the hands of ex Gov. Ormsbee as receiver in '95, who has been since the failure engaged in collecting the assets. The Barton bank and a number of other creditors begun last spring a suit in equity against stockholders residing in Vermont to enforce a double liability of stockholders as provided in the charter. There are about 100 of these stockholders joined in the suit and about $150,000 is in controversy. These defendants living in different parts of the state held a meeting and appointed a committee for concert of action in defense. This committee employed W. L. Burnap and Seneca Haselton of Burlington to defend the cause. Upon the demurrer interposed by them. very many important questions are raised which are new in this state. The cause was argued in the Supreme court at Montpelier on Friday, consuming the entire day. The court, in view of the magnitude of the case and the importance of the question raised, signified their wish that it be exhaustively argued.