Brown v. Tarkington

Decision Date01 December 1865
PartiesBROWN v. TARKINGTON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.

The case was this: The suit was brought by Brown, the plaintiff in error, to recover against Tarkington and others, defendants, the amount of four promissory notes, and another small sum, in the aggregate exceeding twelve thousand dollars. The defendants were stockholders in the Bank of Tekama, in the Territory of Nebraska, organized under a charter granted by the legislature, February 13, 1857. The notes were signed by its president, S. L. Campbell.

By an act of Congress passed July 1, 1836, it was provided, 'that no act of Territorial legislature of any of the Territories of the United States, incorporating any bank, or any institution with banking powers and privileges, hereafter passed, shall have any force or effect whatever, until approved and confirmed by Congress.' The charter of this bank, as already observed, was passed in 1857. Three of the notes were given on the 9th June, 1858, and the fourth on the 28th April of the same year. The consideration of the three notes of the 9th of June, was for a balance due the plaintiff from the Bank of Tekama on a settlement of accounts; and of the other, for moneys advanced to Campbell, the president, to enable him to redeem the paper of the bank in circulation.

Much evidence was given, in the course of the trial, tending to prove that the plaintiff was connected with the officers and directors of the bank in conducting its operations, in aiding and assisting, personally, and by his credit and means to extend the circulation of its bills; and also tending to prove that the plaintiff was familiar with the charter of the bank, and the articles of association, and knew of the illegality of the association, and participated, in common with the officers and directors, in very unscrupulous, if not fraudulent contrivances, to keep up the credit of the bank and its bills, to the injury and loss of the business public, after they had knowledge of its utter insolvency and inability to redeem the paper already in circulation.

Indeed, it was apparent from the evidence that the institution possessed very little, if any, capital, during the whole term of its existence. The nominal capital was $300,000, divided into shares of one hundred dollars each, payable in instalments of ten dollars each. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth instalments were made due and payable at such times as the board of directors might designate. The bank began business in September, 1857, and ceased in the May following, with an outstanding circulation of its bills of some ninety thousand dollars.

In the course of the trial the plaintiff read without objection the deposition of Campbell; and, of course, being thus read, no exception was taken to it. The record however disclosed the fact that at a former term there had been a motion to suppress and exclude this deposition, as not having been taken in conformity with the 30th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, under which the counsel moving to suppress, assumed it to have been taken; and disclosed also the fact that the motion had been overruled.

At the trial, the court below, after referring to the act of Congress forbidding the Territorial legislature to pass any law chartering a bank without its consent, and to the violation of this organic law in the present charter, and to the facts which had been proved, instructed the jury that the charter and the organization of the bank under it, as well as the banking business conducted and carried on through the means of this organization, were all illegal and void; and that if the plaintiff's participated in these transactions, aiding and assisting the officers and directors in giving credit to the bank, and to its bills in circulation, thereby co-operating in the imposition and fraud upon the business...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Citizens Nat. Bank of Meridian v. Golden
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1936
    ... ... 1393; Bullard v. Citizens National ... Bank, 160 So. 280, 173 Miss. 450; Bank of United ... States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 7 L.Ed. 508; Brown v ... Tarkington, [175 Miss. 510] 3 Wall. 377, 18 L.Ed. 255; ... Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349, 20 L.Ed ... 453; Continental Wall ... ...
  • Yegen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1909
    ... ... 841; Buck v. Colbath, ... supra; Covell v. Heyman, supra; In re Smith, 92 F ... 135; J. A. E. Furniture Co., 92 F. 329; In re Brown, ... 91 F. 358; In re Francis-Valentine Co., 93 F. 953; ... In re Richard, 94 F. 633; Norcross v ... Nathan, 99 F. 414; In re Cobb, 96 ... ...
  • O'Gorman v. Sabin
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1895
    ... ... Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198; First ... Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 24 Minn. 140; Kennett v ... Chambers, 14 How. 38; Brown v. Tarkington, 3 ... Wall. 377; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447; ... Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U.S. 71; Pacific ... Nat. Bank v. Mixter, ... ...
  • State ex rel. The Attorney General v. Miller
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1876
    ...St. Louis v. Clemens, 52 Mo. 144; State v. Hawthorne, 9 Mo. 389; State v. Morrow, 12 Mo. 289; State v. Miller, 50 Mo. 129; 2 Wall. 45; 3 Wall. 377. John A. Hockaday, Attorney General, and Frank J. Bowman, for the State, cited: 16 Me. 224; 6 Cow. 196-211, 217; 4 Wheat. 558, 559; 2 Mo. 169; 5......
  • 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