California Bank - Los Angeles, CA

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: September 13, 1891
Location: Los Angeles, California (34.052, -118.244)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: bd2e8b0f64cebb6c

Response Measures

None

Description

Article is OCR-corrupted but clearly discusses litigation in which a receiver was appointed for the California Bank (references appointment in 1891). There is no clear description of a depositor run; instead the piece discusses appointment/ discharge of a receiver and related court proceedings, implying suspension and receivership/closure. Dates and some wording are uncertain due to OCR errors (I preserved the bank name and city as given).

Events (1)

1. September 13, 1891 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: a receiver was appointed in the action... September 13, 1891; ... a receiver California bank vs. Los Angeles ... was appointed in the action in 1891, September 13, in the present case action ... a receiver was appointed in the action cannot avail to hold itself ... the order appointing the receiver was denied ... the order was void. The order is therefore reversed. JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. October 1, 1893 The Herald Los Angeles, CA

Article from The Herald, October 1, 1893

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

SEVERAL CASES DECIDED A RAILROAD CASE REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT. Three Convicts Fail to Court-Grow- Get New Trials From the Supreme by ing Crops Legally Defined Judge Shaw. supreme court has decided Angeles the The Smith, appellant, VS. Los respondcase Pacific of railroad company, superior and reversing the order of the was reent, the case. The opinion Sescourt ceived in for filing yesterday by Mr. non, deputy clerk. was appointed in the case A receiver California bank vs. Los Angeles of the Pacific Railroad company, 1891, Septem- the and 1889. On October 26, filed petiber 13, in the present case action, a plaintiff intervention in that tion forth that he had railroad judgment against 1891, and that setting of 2, the obtained for no a 30 He $4403 of it October had been paid. allowed against prayed the part that railroad his claim it and be might gold that be and certain the debts. proceeds land beapplied longing to to the payment 1892, he of applied its to the On July 11, discharging the recourt on the ground The ceiver, for an him order was void. that applied the appli- order to appointing denied, and he the cation was court for a review had of and supreme A hearing was proceedings. entered denying the the judgment the Subsequently was superior plaintiff court peti- sp. tion. action to the levy plied in order this directing the in sheriff the hands to of for an sufficient property his The the motion was denied order. AND The suupon receiver from to satisfy this judgment. the appeal says was taken court in discussing the case that the preme inasmuch AB it appears which a receivplaintiff that er was appointed in the action cannot receiver, in avail to hold itself that of the services of in the the case is not entitled he the plainfill would be to decide the enforce- that to execution remedy whatever for the no judgment, and ment of his practically bank, ought not to be nia has after permitted abaudoning Califor- that to its action, creditors in euch a position through put the no relief, either they can by the ordinary receiver or order is therefore the The obtain proceeses reversed. JUDGMENTS of law. AFFIRMED. eupreme TWO court also, in the judgment arson The of R. Daniels, affirms the a new case superior court denying convicted of of the The defendant was The only trial. arson in the second for a revereal degree. were that grounds urged erred in giving the jury porcourt instructions the of in its rulings upon the tions and two evidence. asked by The the adpeople, of certain errore. missibility to find any material and court fails of Louis Etting from Burt the Hadley, In the an case and appeal order was denying taken a new trisl. old judgment convicted of robbing Errors were an They were named Boiron. to the Frenchman given errore in of law. The jury and no material errors charged there were instructions court holds and affirms the judgment. GROWING CROPS DEFINED. a Shaw yesterday overruled case of Judge to the complaint in the question demurrer vs. Gibson. The or not Maguire the case was whether section argued in *growing crope," in what the term civil code, of of personal property includes young 2955 claeses the prescribing orange kept may trees for be mortgaged, nursery and there Shaw in eale for says that the growing transplanting. in a Judge question short been decided by the has a never that no other has and opinion chattel state supreme mortcourt, concerning liberal coneimilar statute He rules that the in acgages. of the words is more and struction with common gense, cordance therefore overrules the demurror. DEMURRER OVERRULED. A Shaw also overruled'a demurrer of J. C. Judge complaint in the case National to the vs. the Los Angeles that the Wallace The complaint showed debank. the owner of the lands plaintiff was entitled to their possession; defendante have eince that the the will of the scribed 1892, againet and premises plaintiff, July ex- a and maintained on the stock and kept nursery and lot of growing plaintiff from the land, that cluded the withheld possession, and The forcibly has been damaged sufficient $30,000. to encourt he the thinks plaintiff these to facts recover, and there. title fore overrulee the demurrer.