Casey v. Schuchardt
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 790,96 U.S. 494 |
| Parties | CASEY v. SCHUCHARDT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
This case arises upon a bill filed by Casey, receiver of the New Orleans National Banking Association, to recover from Schuchardt & Sons and C. Cavaroc & Son certain securities claimed by them to be held by way of pledge for certain advances made to that institution by Schuchardt & Sons. A decree was made by the Circuit Court dismissing the bill, and from that decree he appealed.
Mr. J. D. Rouse and Mr. Charles Case for the appellant.
Mr. Conway Robinson, contra.
The case is similar to that of Casey v. Cavaroc (supra, p. 467). Schuchardt & Sons were bankers in New York, through whom the New Orleans National Banking Association was in the habit of drawing on foreign houses, and who indorsed and disposed of the drafts, or transmitted them for collection, and made advances thereon. They were thus is the habit of indorsing and devancing on bills drawn by the bank on Seignouret Fr eres, of Bordeaux. In August and September they became uneasy, and required security; and it was agreed between them and the bank that they would receive and indorse drafts on Seignouret Fr eres, and accept the drafts of the bank on themselves to a certain limited amount, upon being secured by a pledge of commercial securities, to be deposited in the hands of Charles Cavaroc & Son. In pursuance of this arrangement, on the 17th of September, the bank transmitted to Schuchardt & Sons its drafts on Seignouret Fr eres to the amount of 250,000 francs, and, at the same time, drew on Schuchardt & Sons against said drafts for the sum of $50,000. On the same day, or the day following, securities of the bank to the amount of $60,000 were selected by the note clerk, by direction of Charles Cavaroc, president of the bank, put into an envelope indorsed with the name of Schuchardt & Sons, and handed to Cavaroc, who handed them to the cashier; and thereafter they were treated in precisely the same manner as the securities which were selected for the Credit Mobilier and the Park Bank, as shown in the cases which have just been decided. When due they were collected or renewed, and when wanted by the bank for other purposes they were taken and used, and other securities were substituted in their place. They continued to remain and figure on the books of the bank and in its statements as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sexton v. Kessler & Co.
... ... This relieves us from the necessity of examining ... authorities relating to pledges. A word, however, may be said ... as to the cases of Casey v. Cavaroc, 96 U.S. 467, 24 ... L.Ed. 779, Casey v. National Bank, 96 U.S. 492, 24 ... L.Ed. 789, and Casey v. Schuchardt, 96 U.S. 494, 24 ... ...
-
Reynes v. Dumont Dumont v. Fry
...assets, which resulted in my favor, as will appear by the decision of the supreme court of the United States in the case of Casey v. Schuchardt, 96 U. S. 494.' In that case, Mr. Justice BRADLEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'Schuchardt & Sons were bankers, in New York, through......
- Casey v. Schneider