State v. Stoll State v. Stoll

State v. Stoll

84 U.S. 425, 1873.SCT.0000008

    • $0.99
    • $0.99

Publisher Description

The charter of the remaining bank was to the same effect, omitting the direction to the comptroller-general and his action thereon. Reverting now to the five earlier banks and to recharters of them, the reader will remember that in the recharters of the Bank of the State of South Carolina, made, first in 1832 and again in 1852, 'the same,' the old charter of 1812–including, of course, the sixteenth section–was continued. And that the same thing was true of the four other banks, so far as related to their recharters as made in 1822, 1830, and 1833. But while in regard to the Bank of the State of South Carolina, no variation was made on the old charter during the active existence of the bank, nor until the legislature in 1868 passed the act to close its operations, the same was not true of the other four early banks which we have spoken of chiefly in connection with it. A variation was finally made on them. And when, after their recharters of 1822, 1830, and 1833, they were again rechartered in 1852 and 1853, the old sixteenth section was not re-enacted in regard to them, but they were made subject to the last above-quoted restriction of the later banks; the banks, namely, incorporated between the years 1831 and 1836.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1873
October 1
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
18
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SELLER
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
SIZE
55.2
KB
Folsom v. Dewey. Stringfellow v. Cain (99 U. S. 610) Affirmed Folsom v. Dewey. Stringfellow v. Cain (99 U. S. 610) Affirmed
1880
Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John F. A. Sandford Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John F. A. Sandford
1856
Bush v. Gore Bush v. Gore
2000
Hamilton v. Dillin Hamilton v. Dillin
1874
Tyler v. Cain Tyler v. Cain
2001
Stogner V. California Stogner V. California
2003