Overview
Case summary
This case involves a suit by S. B. Thompson, receiver of the insolvent Central Nebraska National Bank, to recover a 90% assessment on bank shares from the German Insurance Company and other defendants. The insurance company had transferred its shares allegedly to escape statutory liability. The bill was filed over four years after the assessment became due. Defendants demurred, challenging jurisdiction and asserting the action was barred by Nebraska's four-year statute of limitations. The court held it had jurisdiction under federal statutes as the controversy arose under U.S. laws and involved over $2,000. Applying Campbell v. Haverhill, the court ruled that state statutes of limitations apply to federal statutory actions. The court further held that the statute applies in equity, begins to run when the assessment becomes due, and was not tolled by the comptroller's assessment or bank liquidation. Since the suit was filed more than four years after the assessment due date, the action was time-barred, and the demurrers were sustained.
Abstract
Receiver for insolvent national bank sued shareholders, including an insurance company that transferred shares to escape liability, to recover a 90% assessment on bank shares. Defendants demurred, challenging jurisdiction and asserting the action was barred by the four-year state statute of limitations, which the court held applies to federal statutory actions and begins running when the assessment becomes due without tolling. The suit, filed over four years after the assessment due date, was time-barred, sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the bill.
Opinion of the court
opinionSHIRAS, District Judge
- Jurisdiction exists under federal statutes
- State statute of limitations applies to federal statutory actions
- Statute applies in equity
- Statute began to run when assessment became due
- Assessment did not toll statute
- Action barred as filed more than four years after due date
Jurisdiction
challenged- Amount involved exceeds $2,000 exclusive of interest and costs
Procedural posture
- Jurisdiction of circuit court
- Applicability of state statute of limitations
- Whether statute of limitations was tolled
Subsequent history
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Jurisdiction exists under federal statutes as controversy arises under U.S. laws and amount exceeds $2,000
Issue preserved for review
de novo
State statute applies to federal statutory actions per Campbell v. Haverhill
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Statute bar enforced in equity as well as at law per circuit court precedents
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Assessment created right of action but did not institute suit; statute began to run when assessment became due
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Failure to apply state statute of limitations to federal statutory action — procedural · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
- Failure to toll statute of limitations due to comptroller's assessment — procedural · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
Statutory interpretation
2Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Jurisdiction and applicability of statute of limitations — de novo Questions of law reviewed de novo
Timeline
Comptroller made 90% assessment on shares of Central Nebraska National Bank
Created right of action against stockholders
Assessment became due and payable
Statute of limitations began to run from this date
Bill filed in circuit court to enforce assessment
Outcome: Demurrers filed
Suit commenced more than four years after assessment due
Demurrers sustained and bill dismissed
Outcome: Bill dismissed at cost of complainants
Court held action barred by state statute of limitations
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
6 facts- Complainant is receiver of Central Nebraska National Bank, appointed by comptroller of currency
- On July 13, 1892, comptroller made 90% assessment on face value of bank shares, due August 3, 1892
- Bill filed October 5, 1896, over four years after assessment due
- German Insurance Company was original shareholder with 100 shares at $100 par value
- Insurance Company transferred shares to other parties with knowledge of bank's insolvency to escape statutory liability
- Amount of assessment sought is $9,000
Disputed questions
- Whether transfer of shares was fraudulent to escape liability
Procedural history
4 steps- Bill filed October 5, 1896 to enforce assessment against stockholders
- Demurrers filed by defendants challenging jurisdiction and statute of limitations
- Demurrers sustained and bill dismissed
- Complainant filed amended bill (77 Fed. 258) which was also dismissed upon demurrer
Evidence in the record
- Bill filed in case
- Assessment order by comptroller
- Evidence type: Allegations in bill regarding fraudulent transfer · Challenge basis: Statute of limitations · Trial court ruling: excluded · Reasoning: Action barred by limitations regardless of merits · Challenged on appeal: false · Appellate outcome: not applicable
Objects of relevance
Policy considerations
- Balance between enforcing statutory liabilities and finality through limitations periods
Authorities
Cited authorities (3)
Related cases (11)
Statutes
- Acts of Congress of 1887 and 1888 (jurisdiction)
- Comp. St. Neb. 1895, §§ 5599-5601 (statute of limitations)
Standards & doctrines
- Campbell v. Haverhill doctrine on state statutes applying to federal actions
Legal principles applied
- State statutes apply to federal statutory actions per Campbell v. Haverhill
- Statute applies in equity as well as at law
Notable quotes
“The fact that this proceeding is based upon a federal statute does not except it from the operation of the state statute of limitations.”SHIRAS, District Judge — Discussion of applicability of state statute to federal statutory actionEstablishes principle that state limitations apply to federal claims
“The act of the comptroller in making the assessment created a right of action against the stockholders, but it was not the institution of a suit for the enforcement of the right of action thus called into being.”SHIRAS, District Judge — Explanation of why assessment did not toll statuteDistinguishes between creating right of action and instituting suit