Article Text
HOOD IS NAMED BANK RECEIVER Woodsfield, Jan. Willard Hood of Cambridge has appointed receiver the First National bank Woodsfield CLASSIFIED greatest
First National Bank (Woodsfield, OH)
Episode Information
- Episode UID
541401609- Episode Type
- Suspension → Closure
- Bank Type
- national
- Bank ID
-
54140national - Charter Number
- 5414
- Start Date
- January 8, 1934
- Location
- Woodsfield, Ohio (39.763, -81.115)
Metadata
- Model
- gpt-5-mini (chosen from majority vote of a three-model LLM ensemble)
- Short Digest
5144c49554d6199b
Response Measures
None
Receivership Details
- Depositor recovery rate
- 95.9%
- Date receivership started
- 1934-01-02
- Date receivership terminated
- 1940-01-27
- Share of assets assessed as good
- 53.4%
- Share of assets assessed as doubtful
- 43.2%
- Share of assets assessed as worthless
- 3.4%
Events (5)
1.
June 9, 1900
Chartered
- Source
- historical_nic
2.
January 2, 1934
Receivership
- Source
- historical_nic
3.
January 8, 1934
Receivership
- Newspaper Excerpt
- HOOD IS NAMED BANK RECEIVER ... Willard Hood of Cambridge has appointed receiver the First National bank Woodsfield
- Source
- newspapers
4.
January 8, 1934
Suspension
- Cause
- Government Action
- Cause Details
- Receiver appointed and bank placed into receivership by authority; suspended operations
- Newspaper Excerpt
- Willard Hood of Cambridge has appointed receiver the First National bank Woodsfield
- Source
- newspapers
5.
February 23, 1939
Receivership
- Newspaper Excerpt
- The court of appeals has sustained Judge Carlos M. Riecker in the case of Harry Briggs, receiver of the First National bank, of Woodsfield vs. L. E. Motz of Woodsfield.
- Source
- newspapers
Newspaper Articles (2)
Click image to open full size in new tab
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# JUDGE RIECKER SUSTAINED # BY HIGHER COURT The court of appeals has sustained Judge Carlos M. Riecker in the case of Harry Briggs, receiver of the First National bank, of Woodsfield vs. L. E. Motz of Woodsfield. Action was brought on a promissory note for about $2,500 against defendant. The firm of Motz & Motz had a claim of $2,200 against the bank, which they claimed as a set off against the note. During the trial Judge Riecker ordered the jury to bring in a direct verdict in favor of the bank, holding the claim of defendant against the bank was not a legal one and should not be allowed. The case heard in Woodsfield, was hotly contested, and after Judge Riecker's decision was later carried to the court of appeals, which sustained Judge Riecker's finding.