Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Margaret C. ELFRETH and Wm. M. Clevenger, Appellants, v. Laurence A. SLAUGHTER, Receiver of Union National Bank of Atlantic City, et al., Appellees, 1935 — 75 F.2d 1012 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
Margaret C. ELFRETH and Wm. M. Clevenger, Appellants, v. Laurence A. SLAUGHTER, Receiver of Union National Bank of Atlantic City, et al., Appellees
75 F.2d 1012·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1935
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Margaret C. ELFRETH and Wm. M. Cleven-ger, Appellants, v. Laurence A. SLAUGHTER, Receiver of Union National Bank of Atlantic City, et al., Appellees.
No. 5607.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Feb. 4, 1935.
Wm. M. & Thomas R. Clevenger, of Atlantic City, N. J., for appellants.
Harry R. Coulomb, of Atlantic City, N. J., for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In the court below the appellants, stockholders of an insolvent national bank now in the hands of a receiver, sought to enjoin such receiver from enforcing an assessment, on the stockholders made by the Comptroller of the Currency.
Relying on Miller v. Stock, 65 F.(2d) 773, 90 A. L. R. 1061, a decision by this court, and Schram v. Schwartz, 68 F.(2d) 699, of the Second Circuit, the court below refused the sought for relief. Whereupon, the shareholders took this appeal.
It is clear the court committed no error, and its decree is therefore affirmed.