Drusilla Mitchell v. First National Bank of Chicago 11, 12 1900
Decision Date | 29 October 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 45,45 |
Citation | 180 U.S. 471,21 S.Ct. 418,45 L.Ed. 627 |
Parties | H. DRUSILLA MITCHELL, Petitioner , v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO. Argued October 11, 12, 1900. Ordered for reargument |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. T. M. Maltbie and C. E. Mitchell for petitioner.
Messrs. Percy S. Bryant and Wm. C. Case for respondent.
This is a suit upon a written guaranty held by the First National Bank of Chicago. It was signed in Connecticut by H. Drusilla Mitchell, she being a married woman, and by others, and was delivered in Chicago to the bank under circumstances presently to be stated.
The circuit court held that the liability of Mrs. Mitchell should be determined by the laws of Connecticut. The circuit court of appeals adjudged that, as the writing was delivered to the bank in Illinois, Mrs. Mitchell's liability was determinable by the laws of that state.
The case, however, presents the further question whether the precise matter in issue—the liability of Mrs. Mitchell notwithstanding her coverture at the time the guaranty was signed was not adjudicated against the bank in the courts of Connecticut prior to the final judgment in the present case, and, if so whether the bank was concluded by that adjudication, which remains unmodified.
The case as presented by the pleadings and by the agreed facts set forth in a written stipulation of the parties is this:
In 1891 and prior thereto the firm of Morse, Mitchell, & Williams, composed of Francis E. Morse, Frederick C. Williams, and George H. Mitchell (the latter being the husband of H. Drusilla Mitchell), was engaged in mercantile and real-estate business at Chicago, Illinois, and kept an account with the First National Bank of that city.
The firm became indebted to the bank in the sum of $20,000 or more, as evidenced by its notes. The bank agreed to continue giving it credit upon the condition that the firm and its individual members, together with Mrs. Mitchell, would execute a certain paper which it had directed to be prepared.
Mitchell and his wife at the time resided in Connecticut, and did not have a residence elsewhere after their marriage, which occurred in 1857. He took the paper prepared by the bank, and brought it to his residence in Connecticut, and there procured his wife to sign the same; and it was thereafter by him inclosed, addressed, and sent by mail to Morse, in Chicago, who delivered the paper to the bank.
The paper referred to was signed by Morse, Mitchell, & Williams, Francis E. Morse, Frederick C. Williams, G. H. Mitchell, and H. Drusilla Mitchell, and was as follows:
The bank continued to extend credit to Morse, Mitchell, & Williams until the firm became insolvent and made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, on the 30th day of July, 1893. At the time of such insolvency and assignment it held and owned the notes of Morse, Mitchell, & Williams; renewals of unpaid portions of the abovementioned notes, for $16,500; a note of Elizabeth Ewing indorsed by that firm; also notes of F. E. Morse & Son, with whom George H. Mitchell had no connection.
It appears that on the 28th day of December, 1893, Mrs. Mitchell notified the executor of her father that she had assigned and transferred to the bank all of her right, title, and interest in so much of the testator's estate as was then undistributed, and authorized such executor to pay to the bank all money and property coming to her or to which she was entitled from that estate.
The present action was brought by the bank in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut on the 30th day of December, 1895, against Mrs. Mitchell and her husband. The complaint alleged that in reliance upon and in consideration of the above guaranty and promise the bank had extended credit and advanced money to Morse, Mitchell, & Williams from time to time and within the period specified in the instrument, to the amount of $30,000 and for that amount it claimed judgment.
Mrs. Mitchell, by plea in abatement filed April 28th, 1896 (her husband having died the month previous), averred that at the time the above guaranty was executed, as well as at the commencement of the action, 'she was a married woman, the wife of George H. Mitchell, since deceased, and was so married prior to April 27th, 1877, viz., on the ___ day of _____ 1857, and has not entered into the contract authorized by § 2798, General Statutes of Connecticut.'
The section here referred to, as well as the two preceding sections, are as follows:
Gen. Stat. Conn. 1888, pp. 610, 611.
It appears that at a court of probate held at Bristol, Connecticut, on the 30th day of September, 1896,—after the institution of the present suit in the Federal court, and after commissioners in insolvency in the probate court had made a report on the estate of Mrs. Mitchell,—Edward A. Freeman, trustee of that estate, took an appeal to the superior court at Hartford from 'the doings of said commissioners in allowing a claim in favor of the First National Bank of Chicago,'—the same claim on which the bank brought this suit.
In the superior court the bank filed a statement in which it was alleged that its claim was secured by an assignment to it of Mrs. Mitchell's interest in the estate of her father. Mrs. Mitchell filed an answer denying certain allegations in that statement, and pleading, among other things, her coverture at the time of the signing of the writing relied on by the bank, and her residence in Connecticut during all her married life and since. To this answer the bank filed a reply. The parties—the bank and the trustee Freeman—consented in writing that the case be reserved 'for the advice of the supreme court of errors of the state as to the judgment to be therein rendered,' and they united in requesting the superior court 'to so reserve the case upon the issues joined and the agreed facts.' In conformity with this request the case was reserved. At the same time the parties filed in that court their agreed statement of facts.
It may be here stated that in Connecticut 'questions of law may be reserved by the superior court, court of common pleas, or district court, in cases tried before either of them, for the advice of the supreme court of errors: Provided, That no such questions shall be reserved without the consent of all parties to the record in such cases; and the court making such reservation shall, in the judgment, decree, or decision made or rendered in such cases, conform to the advice of the supreme court of errors.' Gen. Stat. Conn. 1888, p. 260, § 1114.
The supreme court of errors of Connecticut advised the superior court to disallow every part of the claim of the bank. Speaking by Judge Baldwin it said, among other things: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goodno v. Hotchkiss
... ... (2) Res ... adjudicata arising, first, from a decree of the court of ... probate for ... The first ... codicil was dated May 1, 1900, in which she made different ... provisions, in ... Pomeroy, 143 U.S. 318, 337, 12 ... Sup.Ct. 410, 36 L.Ed. 169; Utermehle v ... 520, ... and cases there cited; Bank of the U.S. v. Daniel, ... 12 Pet. 32, 57, 9 ... Sup.Ct. 442, 51 L.Ed. 738; Mitchell v. First National ... Bank of Chicago, 180 U.S ... ...
-
Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow
... ... Although ... as first conceived, it was the avowed intention of the ... 104; ... Hall v. Cordell, 142 U.S. 116, 12 S.Ct. 154, 35 ... L.Ed. 956; Andrews v. Pond, ... v. Barnes, [1900] A. C. 240, 257, Lord Robertson says: ... 'The ... 728, ... 47 L.Ed. 1113: Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific ... Ry. Co., 205 U.S ... Indian Head Nat. Bank v ... Clark, 166 Mass. 27, 43 N.E. 912; ... S.Ct. 154, 48 L.Ed. 276; Central National Bank v ... Stevens, 169 U.S. 432-460, 18 S.Ct ... 295, 308, 7 S.Ct. 887, 30 L.Ed. 962; Mitchell v. First ... Nat. Bank of Chicago, 180 U.S ... ...
-
Johnson v. United Railways Company
... ... COMPANY et al Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division May 31, 1912 ... ... Stine, 15 Phila ... 37; Bank v. Claxton, 80 S.W. 607; Smith v ... Tyler, ... on Ev., secs. 528-530 (Redfield's 12 Ed.); Wibur v ... Gilmore, 38 Mass. 250; ... Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 335; Sec. 1900, R ... S. 1909; Chouteau v. Rowse, 90 Mo ... Mitchell v. Bank, 180 U.S. 471, 45 L.Ed. 627, 21 ... ...
-
City of Boston v. McGovern
... ... No. 1587. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. July 25, 1923 ... [292 F. 706] ... Sup.Ct. 442, 51 L.Ed. 738; Yates v. Utica Bank, 206 ... U.S. 181, 27 Sup.Ct. 646, 51 L.Ed ... of a state are authoritative in the national courts ... Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Town ... by the opinion in Mitchell v. First Nat. Bank of ... Chicago, 180 U.S ... Cummins, 142 U.S. 366, 12 ... Sup.Ct. 220, 35 L.Ed. 1044 ... A ... ...