Bank of Kentucky - Louisville, KY

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: July 27, 1934
Location: Louisville, Kentucky (38.254, -85.759)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: d614f55d40936186

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (Aug 28, 1934) describes litigation involving a receiver for the Bank of Kentucky and a proposed decree enforcing directors' liability following a July 27 opinion. The piece indicates the bank is in receivership (i.e., permanently closed/insolvent) but does not describe a depositor run or an earlier suspension explicitly. Classified as suspension_closure because the bank has a receiver and appears to be permanently closed. OCR errors in the article (e.g., garbled sentences) were left as-is where unclear; no additional events (runs or reopenings) are described.

Events (2)

1. July 27, 1934 Other

Newspaper Excerpt: The decree was formulated upon the opinion handed down by Federal Judge Arthur Tuttle, July 27. It lists each of the defendants and the full amount of the judgment in each case. (Owensboro Messenger, Aug. 28, 1934).
Source: newspapers

2. August 28, 1934 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: The proposed decree was accompanied by letter stating that conferences between attorneys for the plaintiff and for the defendants had developed the fact that no agreement could be reached regarding the amounts involved in the judgment... petition by Judge Churchill Humphreys executor of the estate ... was filed, asking opportunity to show the absence of his father from meetings of the directors ... (Owensboro Messenger, Aug. 28, 1934).
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. August 29, 1934 The Owensboro Messenger Owensboro, KY

Article from The Owensboro Messenger, August 29, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

REOPENING Directors' Attorneys Want to Present Agreements on Judgment of $4,500,000. Louisville, Ky., Aug. 28.-Probability that certain items of the Bank of Kentucky directors' liability case, which an apjudgment has been handed down, will be reopened, was seen Monday following filing documents in the Federal court here. proposed decree of the liability of defendants was filed by attorneys for the bank's receiver, who the plaintiff in the case, listing the accounts for which each defendant would be held liable. The decree was formulated upon the opinion handed down by Federal Judge Arthur Tuttle, July 27. It lists each of the defendants and the full amount of the judgment in each case. The proposed decree was accompanied by letter stating that conferences between attorneys for the plaintiff and for the defendants had developed the fact that no agreement could be reached regarding the amounts involved in the judgment. The defendants' attorneys contended that they cannot agree to settlement on the basis of terms of service each defendant, and stated that, on the contrary, they wished an opportunity reopen the argument to submit details of presence absence at particular meetings, as basis for computing the amounts of adjudication against the defendants The letter asked that time the near future be set for settlement of the At the same time the proposed settlement decree was filed, petition by Judge Churchill Humphexecutor of the estate of his father, Judge Alex Humphrey, was filed, asking opportunity to show the absence of his father from meetings the directors while he was recovering from accident, and thus extenuating liability.