Long Siding State Bank - Mille Lacs County, MN

Episode Information

Episode UID: 75150071465
Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Bank ID: 7515007 routing
Routing Number: 75-1500
Start Date: January 1, 1922*
Location: Mille Lacs County, Minnesota (45.938, -93.630)

Metadata

Model: gemini-3-flash-preview (chosen from majority vote of a three-model LLM ensemble)
Short Digest: 11ad0599b5f09b4c

Response Measures

None

Description

The bank is mentioned as one of 14 that collapsed due to the Schafer fraud case; the article discusses receivership proceedings for the parent company.

Events (2)

1. January 1, 1922* Suspension

Cause: Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details: Fraud and defalcations by a controlling stockholder (Schafer) involving the Mortgage Security company.
Newspaper Excerpt: The Long Siding State bank was among those which suffered through Schafer's defalcations.
Source: newspapers

2. May 18, 1922 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: Mr. Darelius is quoted as saying that about 90 per cent of the money which will be obtained as the result of this decision will be turned over to the state banking department for the benefit of the banks
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. May 18, 1922 The Princeton Union Princeton, MN

Article from The Princeton Union, May 18, 1922

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# SCHAFER CASE BOBS UP. By Supreme Court Ruling Depositors of 14 Banks Will Get From $125,000 to $150,000. The state supreme court has handed down a decision upholding the Hennepin county district court in the Schafer fraud case. By this ruling between $125,000 and $150,000 will be obtained for depositors of the 14 banks, the collapse of which resulted in Schafer's being sentenced to the penitentiary. The Long Siding State bank was among those which suffered through Schafer's defalcations. The decision came in a suit brought by A. B. Darelius, as receiver for the Mortgage Security company, against the Commonwealth Mortgage company. Schafer controlled both companies, and it was alleged that he had transferred property from the Mortgage Security company to the Commonwealth Mortgage company without consideration. The supreme court's decision was as follows: "The evidence sustains the finding of the trial court that the issuance of certain notes and the transfer of certain property by the plaintiff corporation to the defendant corporation in payment of the notes were transactions done at the instance of a controlling stockholder in both corporations without consideration, without authority of the plaintiff corporation, and in fraud of that corporation, that the defendant corporation was chargeable with knowledge of the facts and that the plaintiff corporation is entitled to have the transaction set aside." Mr. Darelius is quoted as saying that about 90 per cent of the money which will be obtained as the result of this decision will be turned over to the state banking department for the benefit of the banks which are creditors of the Mortgage Security company.