McDonald v. Thompson

1902-02-03
Share:

Headline: Bank receiver’s effort to collect a shareholder’s assessment is blocked as the Court upheld the state’s four‑year lawsuit limit, making the claim time‑barred when the assessment fell due more than four years earlier.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Makes suits to collect shareholder assessments subject to the state’s four‑year limit.
  • Requires receivers to file enforcement suits promptly after assessments become payable.
Topics: bank shareholder liability, time limits for lawsuits, receiver actions, stock assessments

Summary

Background

A federal receiver acting for the creditors of the insolvent Capital National Banking Association sued a former shareholder to collect an assessment ordered by the Comptroller of the Currency. The Comptroller issued an assessment order June 10, 1893, making the assessment payable July 10, 1893, and the receiver began the suit on May 20, 1898.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the receiver’s claim was based on a written contract (which the state allows suit on for five years) or on an unwritten contract or a liability created by statute (which the state limits to four years). The Court explained that the written subscription to stock was a contract between the bank and the shareholder to buy shares, but the obligation to pay creditors arose from statute and was implied, not an express written promise about creditor claims. Because the assessment became payable on July 10, 1893, the four‑year limit governed. The Court also rejected the idea that the statute did not start running until creditors’ own claims expired, noting the receiver’s right arose when the assessment was made.

Real world impact

The decision means receivers and creditors must sue to enforce shareholders’ statutory assessments within the state’s four‑year time limit counted from the date the assessment is payable. Suits filed after that period are barred. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decree dismissing the time‑barred bill.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases