Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Clark
| Decision Date | 30 April 1835 |
| Parties | BANK OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY v. DAVID CLARK, IMPLEADED WITH WILLIAM J. MCELROY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARION COUNTY.
The President and Directors of the Bank of the Common wealth of Kentucky on the 19th day of January, 1833, commenced their action against Clark on a promissory note made by him to them on the 21st day of September, 1822, and payable one hundred and twenty days after date.
The defendant pleaded these three pleas: 1st. Nil debet. 2nd. That the right of action did not accrue within five years. 3rd. That the consideration of the promissory note sued on was illegal, &c. The two last pleas were demurred to, and the defendants joined in the demurrers. We will first inquire whether the third plea be good. In that plea the defendant states that the legislature of the State of Kentucky, by law, established a bank in the name and on behalf of the Commonwealth of that State, under the direction of a president and twelve directors, to be chosen by joint ballot of both houses of the General Assembly of said State, which said president and directors were authorized to appoint a cashier and clerks, and other persons to aid in conducting the same; that the said president and directors and their successors in office were by the said act created a corporation and body politic in law, and in fact by the name and style of the President and Directors of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, so to continue till the 1st day of January, 1841; that the whole capital stock of the said bank was by the said act, declared to be exclusively the property of the Commonwealth, and was to consist of three millions of dollars, to be raised and paid in the following manner, to-wit: all monies hereafter to be paid into the treasury for vacant lands of this Commonwealth; all monies hereafter to be paid into the treasury for land warrants; all monies which may hereafter be raised by the sale of the vacant lands west of the Tennessee river--and so much of the capital stock of the Bank of Kentucky as may be found to be due to the State after settlement of the affairs of the bank; that the president and directors of said bank were by said act authorized to issue notes signed by the president and countersigned by the cashier for such sums and with such device as they might deem most expedient and safe, not under the denomination of one dollar, nor over one hundred dollars, on behalf of the said corporation; that the said bank by the said act, was authorized to receive money on deposit, discount bills of exchange, &c. also to make loans to the citizens of the State in the nature of discounts on real estate; that the bills or notes of the said bank were by the said act to be received at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornton v. Nat'l Exch. Bank
...in contravention of public policy, or of a statute. Downing v. Ringer, 7 Mo. 585; Bank of Mo. v. Bank of Baltimore, 10 Mo. 125; Bank v. Clark, 4 Mo. 59; Griffith v. Bank, 4 Mo. 255; Riley v. Jordan, 122 Mass. 231; s. c., 5 Cent. Law Jour. 120. 2. The equity of plaintiffs grows out of three ......
-
National Bank v. Matthews
...awarded. Fowler v. Scully, 72 Pa. St. 456; Kansas Valley National Bank v. Rowell, 2 Dill. 371; Ripley v. Harris, 3 Biss. 190; Commonwealth Bank v. Clark, 4 Mo. 59; Griffith v. Commonwealth Bank, id. 255; Bank of Lawrence v. Young, 37 id. 398; Downing v. Ringer, 7 id. 585; White v. Franklin ......