Bailey v. Mosher, 418.

Citation63 F. 488
Decision Date10 September 1894
Docket Number418.
PartiesBAILEY v. MOSHER et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

63 F. 488

MOSHER et al.

No. 418.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 10, 1894

S. B. Pound (Lionel C. Burr, Richard S. Norval, Benjamin F. Norval, and George W. Lowley, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

J. W. Deweese (T. M. Marquett and F. M. Hall, on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought in the district court of Lancaster county, Neb., by Thomas Bailey, the plaintiff in error, against Charles W. Mosher, Homer J. Walsh, Rolla O. Phillips, Charles E. Yates, Ellis P. Hamer, Ambrose P. S. Stewart, and Richard C. Outcalt, the defendants in error, and removed into the circuit court of the United States for the district [63 F. 489] of Nebraska on the petition of the defendants, upon the ground that the suit was one arising under the laws of the United States. A motion to remand the cause to the state court was overruled, and a demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and final judgment entered for the defendants; whereupon the plaintiff sued out this writ of error, assigning for error these rulings of the circuit court. The petition alleges the plaintiff loaned the Capital National Bank of Lincoln $11,500, and seeks by this suit to recover the same from the defendants, who were directors of the bank, upon grounds to be presently stated.

We have only found it necessary to consider two of the many questions discussed in the briefs of counsel. It is earnestly contended that this is not a suit raising under the laws of the United States, but is an action for deceit, with which the national banking act has no connection. The soundness of this contention must be tested by the averments of the petition. The petition states a single cause of action, founded wholly on the alleged misfeasance and nonfeasance of the defendants in their capacities as officers and directors of a national bank. The alleged official misconduct of the defendants which is relied upon as stating a ground of action is particularly set out. It is alleged that they made false and misleading reports as to the condition of the bank to the comptroller of the currency, by which the plaintiff was deceived and misled as to the condition of the bank; that loans were made to persons in excess of the amount which could lawfully be loaned to any one person; that they made large loans to the president and cashier of the bank, in violation of the banking act, and declared and paid dividends when there were no earnings or profits out of which to pay them; that all of these acts were violations of the national banking act, and of the duties of the defendants as officers and directors of the bank under that act; and the complaint concludes with the averment that, 'by reason of the several violations of the banking law as above set forth,' the defendants are liable to the plaintiff in the sum sued for. In view of the last averment of the petition it is difficult to perceive how the plaintiff can successfully maintain that his cause of action does not arise under a law of the United States. It is said in the brief of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error that, if certain allegations of the petition state a cause of action for a violation of the national banking act, the preceding paragraphs state an independent cause of action for deceit. A petition containing a single paragraph cannot be made to subserve the purpose of two distinct and dissimilar causes of action. Kewaunee Co. v. Decker, 30 Wis. 624. We feel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Webb v. Cash
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 26 de outubro de 1926 one of deceit at common law, or for recovery upon a statutory liability provided by 5150 C. S.; the question arose in Bailey v. Mosher, 63 F. 489 (8th Cir.) where it held that the action was based on a statute; our state banking laws are quite similar to the National Banking Act; where s......
  • Federal Reserve Bank v. Omaha Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 14 de novembro de 1930
    ...of the assets of the insolvent bank in accordance with law. First National Bank v. Colby, 21 Wall. 609, 22 L. Ed. 687; Bailey v. Mosher, 63 F. 488, 491 (C. C. A. 8); Hayden v. Thompson, 71 F. 60, 65 (C. C. A. 8); Stuart v. Hayden, 72 F. 402, 405 (C. C. A. 8); Steele v. Randall, 19 F.(2d) 40......
  • McTamany v. Day
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 11 de dezembro de 1912
    ... ... it must be upon the part of the receiver. (Bailey v ... Mosher, 63 F. 488, 11 C. C. A. 304; Terry v ... Tubman, 92 U.S. 158, 23 L.Ed. 539; ... ...
  • Boyd v. Schneider
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 1 de julho de 1903
    ...and his discretion. The receiver is the proper party to institute all suits. National Ex. Bank v. Peters (C.C.) 44 F. 13; Bailey v. Mosher, 63 F. 488, 11 C.C.A. 304; Stephens v. Bowes on Nat. Bk. Act, Sec. Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498, 19 L.Ed. 476; Zinn v. Baxter, 65 Ohio St. 341, 62 N.E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT