12 U.S.C. § 723

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Comptroller shall publish notice once a week for four weeks in the Federal Register that all rights of depositors and other creditors of closed national banks to collect liquidating dividends from the closed receivership fund shall be barred after twelve months following the last date of publication of such notice.“(b) The Comptroller shall pay the principal amount of a liquidating dividend, exclusive of any income earned thereon, to a claimant presenting a valid claim, if the claimant applies to collect within twelve months following the last date notice is published.“(c) If a creditor shall fail to apply to collect a liquidating dividend within twelve months after the last date notice is published, all rights of the claimant against the closed receivership fund with respect to the liquidating dividend shall be barred.“(d) The principal amount of any liquidating dividends (1) for which claims have not been asserted within twelve months following the last date notice is published or (2) for which the Comptroller has determined a valid claim has not been submitted shall, together with any income earned on liquidating dividends and other moneys, if any, remaining in the closed receivership fund, be covered into the general funds of the Comptroller.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1939–1989 · leading case: San Antonio Savings Association and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

San Antonio Savings Association and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1989) ca5 “Those mortgages are, to be sure, selected according to searching and uniform standards, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 723 (a), 751-756. But can it be said that there is no substantial variance in agricultural and financial resource when Louisvillites are contrasted with Wichitavians? Though…”

Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. Board of County Commissioners (1961) scotus “12 U. S. C. § 723 . 19 See note 3, supra.”

Hanlin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1939) ca3 “But can it be said that there is no substantial variance in agricultural and financial resource when Louisvillites are contrasted with Wichitavians ? Though the average sense of obligation may well be the same, even an economist must recognize, by geographical definition, a…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.