Bank of Chicago - Chicago, IL

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: June 21, 1882
Location: Chicago, Illinois (41.850, -87.650)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: a10374ab

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (New-York Tribune, 1882-06-21) discusses the receiver of the insolvent Bank of Chicago and a court decision about the receiver's rights. The piece does not describe a run or an explicit prior suspension, but the bank is described as insolvent and in receivership, implying closure; therefore I classify the episode as a suspension leading to closure. No dates for suspension/appointment of receiver are given beyond the article date.

Events (1)

1. June 21, 1882 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: the receiver of the insolvent Bank of Chicago, against John Allen, as executor, and others, stockholders of the bank.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. June 21, 1882 New-York Tribune New York, NY

Article from New-York Tribune, June 21, 1882

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# A DEMURRER SUSTAINED. Judge Wallace yesterday rendered a decision sustaining the demurrer made in behalf of the defendants in the suit of Augustus Jacobson, the receiver of the insolvent Bank of Chicago, against John Allen, as executor, and others, stockholders of the bank. The act incorporating the bank contained a section providing that "each stockholder shall be liable to double the amount of stock held as owned by him and for three months after giving notice of transfers." The complainant was appointed by the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois, as "receiver of all the estate, property and equitable interests of said bank." The decision says: "Unless the right of action to recover the statutory liability of stockholders was part of the estate, property or equitable interests of the bank it did not pass to the receiver under his appointment. Not only because of the allegation of the bill, but also from the inherent nature of a receiver's title, the complainant did not acquire the right to enforce the statutory liability if it existed only in favor of creditors of the bank and not in favor of the corporation." The decision concludes: "Neither a receiver, an assignee in bankruptcy, nor assignee under a voluntary general assignment for the benefit of creditors, each of whom represents creditors as well as the insolvent, acquires any right to enforce a collateral obligation given to a creditor or to a body of creditors by a third person for the payment of the debts of the insolvent."