O'Hare v. Second National Bank of Titusville
Citation | 77 Pa. 96 |
Parties | O'Hare <I>versus</I> Second National Bank of Titusville. |
Decision Date | 04 January 1875 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR and GORDON, JJ.
Writs of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of October and November Term 1874, No. 40 and 41.
Courts will not assist a plaintiff in enforcing a contract arising out of an illegal transaction: Fowler v. Scully, 22 P. F. Smith 456; Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wallace 558; Holt v. Green, 23 P. F. Smith 198; Maybin v. Coulon, 4 Dallas 298. Although it may not be expressly prohibited but only a penalty imposed: Seidenbender v. Charles, 4 S. & R. 151; Columbia Bridge Co. v. Haldeman, 7 W. & S. 233; Burkholder v. Beetem, 15 P. F. Smith 496; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co. 18 P. F. Smith 174; Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Binney 110; Law v. Hodson, 11 East 300; Hall v. Franklin, 3 M. & W. 259; Foster v. Taylor, 5 Barn. & Ad. 887; Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio 226; Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. 258; Seneca Bank v. Lamb, 26 Barbour 595; Chilicothe Bank v. Swayne, 8 Ohio 254. A contract made by a corporation ultra vires or prohibited cannot be enforced: E. Anglian Railway v. E. Counties Railway, 7 Eng. L. & E. 505; McGregor v. Railway, 16 Id. 180; Norwich v. Norfork Railway, 30 Id. 120; Commonwealth v. Erie & N. E. Railroad Co., 3 Casey 339. The contract cannot be enforced whether the illegality be disclosed by the evidence of the plaintiff or defendant.
R. Sherman (with whom was M. C. Beebe), for defendant in error.—A mere omission of a direction or accidental commission of a prohibited act will not make the contract void: the affidavits do not aver that either the bank or Garfield knew of any violation of the law or intended any; such averment was necessary: 1 Parsons on Contracts 459; Kreis v. Seligman, 8 Barbour 439; Faickney v. Reynous, 4 Burrows 2069; Newbold v. Sims, 2 S. & R. 317. When the subject of a contract may be lawful or unlawful according to circumstances, the inference will not be that the contract was to do an unlawful act: Broom's Legal Maxims 518; Lewis v. Davidson, 1 B. & Ald. 463; Williams v. East India Co., 3 East 192. The consideration of the contract must be illegal to prevent the law from enforcing it; Armstrong v. Toller, 11 Wheaton 258; Story's Conflict of Laws, sect. 205-209; 2 Kent's Com. 597-601; Hill v. Manchester, 2 B. & Ad. 544. It is no defence to a suit by a corporation on a contract that the powers of the corporation were transcended: Silver Lake Bank v. North, 4 Johns. Ch. 370; Farnham v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 11 P. F. Smith 265; Goundie v. Northampton Water Company, 7 Barr 233.
The main question in these cases is, whether the notes in suit are illegal, and cannot be recovered upon, because at the time they were discounted the bank had previously lent the drawer, for whose accommodation O'Hare endorsed, more than one-tenth part of its capital. It is contended that the discount was contrary to the 29th section of the National Bank Law of June 3d 1864, providing that "the total liabilities to any association, of any person, or of any company, corporation or firm for money borrowed, including in the liabilities of a company or firm, the liabilities of the several members thereof, shall at no time exceed one-tenth of the amount of the capital stock of such association actually paid in: Provided, That the discount of bonâ fide bills of exchange drawn against actually existing values, and the discount of commercial business paper, actually owned by the person or persons, corporations or firms, negotiating the same, shall not be considered as money borrowed."
The affidavits of defence, upon which the question is raised, do not aver that the excess above one-tenth of the paid-in capital, was knowingly and voluntarily lent to the drawer of the note. This defect in the affidavit would support the judgment, for surely it cannot be contended that an accidental excess made in mistake or in ignorance would forfeit an honest loan. But without resting the case on this defect, we cannot think that an excess known to the bank only, is such an unlawful act, entering into the vitality of the loan, as will avoid it. The fact of an excess of indebtedness over one-tenth of the paid-in capital is a matter aside from the loan itself, not entering into its terms, and therefore collateral. The loan of the money is an act within the authorized power of the bank; a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dunlop v. Mercer
...Bank of Xenia v. Stewart, 107 U.S. 676, 2 Sup.Ct. 778, 27 L.Ed. 592; Gold Mining Co. v. Nat. Bank, 96 U.S. 640, 24 L.Ed. 648; O'Hare v. Bank, 77 Pa. 96; Pangborn Westlake, 36 Iowa, 546; Chattanooga R. & C.R. Co. v. Evans, 14 C.C.A. 116, 121, 122, 66 F. 809, 815. The case of Fritts v. Palmer......
-
Gould Land and Cattle Company v. The Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Company
...437; Neimeyer v. Wright, 75 Va. 239; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79; Bank v. Mathews, 98 U.S. 621; Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U.S. 282; O'Hare v. Bank, 77 Pa. 96; v. Commissioners, 88 F. 749.) There is no claim that the business of the plaintiff was or is detrimental to the public interests or th......
-
Hanover Nat Bank of City of New York v. First Nat Bank of Burlingame
...of the loan exceeded the limit prescribed by this section. Gold-Mining Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 96 U.S. 640, 24 L.Ed. 648; O'Hare v. Bank, 77 Pa. 96; Pangborn Westlake, 36 Iowa, 546. Section 5202 provides that no national bank shall 'be indebted or in any way liable to an amount exc......
-
Farmers' Savings Bank v. Jameson
...that recovery is allowed because it is for the government and not the borrower to punish for the disobedience of such statues. O'Hare v. Bank, 77 Pa. 96 at 102; 5 Cyc., 580, Note 95; Wyman v. Bank, 29 F. 734. How does all this matter? True, the borrower here could not defeat judgment; true,......