When a charter has been duly declared forfeited, the bank has no longer any corporate existence. The bank only has such powers as are given to it by the statute.1 It is exactly the same with the expiration of the charter or its repeal.2 Unless the statute preserves some right, all debts owing to the bank are extinguished at law,3 and all suits pending against the bank are abated.4 But where the statute gives certain rights after forfeiture or expiration of the charter, the corporation may exercise them.5 Various statutory schemes of liquidating banks and various special acts have been passed.6 Trustees are sometimes appointed as required by the statutes.7 In the case of national banks a dissolution of the bank by a decree does not affect a pending action.8 But a judgment of forfeiture and appointment of trustees under a state statute vested the assets in the trustees.9

5 It may be sued. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Gaslin, 41 Minn. 552. See National Bank v. Onondaga Co. Bank, 7 Hun, 549. And see cases in last note.

6 Nat. Pahquioque Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 36 Conn. 325; First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383; Chemical Nat. Bank v. Hartford Deposit Co., 161 U. S. 1; Chemical Nat. Bank v. Hartford Deposit Co., 156 111. 522. The appointment supersedes the power of directors to carry on the bank.

7 See cases cited in last note and American Bank v. Cooper, 54 Me. 438.

8 See note 6, supra, as to national banks. But in Maine the bank cannot be sued after a receiver is appointed. Leathers v. Shipbuilders' Bank, 40 Me. 386.

1 Smith v. Frye, 5 Cranch, C. C. 515; Folger v. Chase, 18 Pick. 63;

Saltmarsh v. Planters' Bank, 14 Ala. 668; Wilson v. Tesson, 12 Ind. 285; Cunningham v. Clark, 24 Ind. 7.

2 Pomeroy v. State Bank, 1 Wall. 23; Whitman v. Cox, 23 Me. 335; Merrill v. Suffolk, 31 Ma 57; Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan, 56 Miss. 166; Fox v. Horah, 1 Ired. Eq. 358.

3 Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 8 Smedes & M. 9; Coulter v. Robertson, 24 Miss. 278.

4 Bank of U. S. v. McLaughlin, 2 Cranch, C. C. 20. But in case of national banks it is not so. Bank of Montreal v. Fidelity Nat Bank, 1 N. Y. Supp. 852,112 N. Y. 667.

5 It may defend a suit (Pomeroy v. State Bank, 1 Wall. 23), or assign paper (Hallowell Bank v. Hamlin. 14 Mass. 178). And see also Cunningham v. Clark, 24 Ind. 7; Folger v. Chase, 18 Pick. 63; Smith v. Frye, 5 Cranch, C. C. 515.