Farmers State Bank - Stapleton, NE

Episode Information

Episode UID: 76057471611
Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Bank ID: 7605747 routing
Routing Number: 76-0574
Start Date: March 31, 1934
Location: Stapleton, Nebraska (41.480, -100.513)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini (chosen from majority vote of a three-model LLM ensemble)
Short Digest: 08d9c8ae90780bf1

Response Measures

None

Description

A receiver (Luikart) is already in place and suits are pending to recover stockholders' liability.

Events (2)

1. March 31, 1934 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: Attorneys for Receiver Luikart of the Farmers State bank of Stapleton asked the supreme court Saturday for rehearing
Source: newspapers

2. March 31, 1934 Suspension

Cause: Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details: Bank declared insolvent; receiver appointed and litigation to recover stockholders' liability pending
Newspaper Excerpt: Receiver Luikart of the Farmers State bank of Stapleton asked the supreme court Saturday for rehearing
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. March 31, 1934 Lincoln Journal Star Lincoln, NE

Article from Lincoln Journal Star, March 31, 1934

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

MILLIONS STAKE Asks Rehearing of Court Holding as to Bank Stockholder Liability. Attorneys for Receiver Luikart of the Farmers State bank of Stapleton asked the supreme court Saturday for rehearing of the case he brought against Paine and others recover stockholders' liability. The matter is set out be of great involving now pending and forty yet to be brought, and which the 50,000 depositors and approximately million dollars involved. The receiver maintains that the court erred when held suit recovery of stockholders' liability cannot maintained where the persons purchased stock prior to the constitutional amendment 1930 until after the assets That amendment suit be begun immediately after bank has been declared insolvent. The supreme court that the amendment changed the liability of the stockholder from secondary to primary, and that the liabilcontractual the new visions did not apply stock bought before they became part of the constitution. receiver insists that the liability always primary, that the change made was remedy. court wrong and its decision went contrary established decisions other He says that since the effective the percentage covery stockholders has been greatly from what true before adoped. also pointed out that this liability the backlog of public confidence banks, should preserved. At least should permitted that the points made can be elaborated.