National Bank Loan Company of Watertown v. Moses Petrie, No. 166
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 23 S.Ct. 512,189 U.S. 423,47 L.Ed. 879 |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK & LOAN COMPANY OF WATERTOWN, New York, Plff. in Err. , v. MOSES PETRIE |
| Docket Number | No. 166 |
| Decision Date | 09 March 1903 |
v.
MOSES PETRIE.
Messrs. Henry Purcell and John Lansing for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Elon R. Brown for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action to recover money paid to the plaintiff in error for certain bonds. One defense set up in the answer was that the bank was a national bank, and that the sale of the bonds was without the authority of the bank, and was illegal and void. Judgment went against the bank, it was affirmed by the appellate division of the supreme court and by the court of appeals, and the case now comes here by writ of error. The ground of the action is that the sale was induced by false representations of the president of the bank. We do not state these particularly, because the findings and rulings of the state court with regard to them are not open. We have to deal with no question except the defense attempted under the United States statute, and, therefore, need not inquire whether they contained a stronger infusion
Page 424
of fraud than is allowed to vendors in the way of praising their wares.
As we are of opinion that the defendant in error is entitled to keep his judgment, it does not matter so much as otherwise it would whether the result is reached by a dismissal of the writ, on the intimation of Walworth v. Kneeland, 15 How. 348, 353, 14 L. ed. 724, 726 (see Conde v. York, 168 U. S. 642, 649, 42 L. ed. 611, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234), or by an affirmance of the judgment. We shall assume that the defense under the statute was such a claim of immunity as to entitle the plaintiff in error to come here. Logan County Nat. Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67, 72, 35 L. ed. 107, 110, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 496; McCormick v. Market Bank, 165 U. S. 538, 546, 41 L. ed. 817, 820, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433. On that assumption, however, we do not perceive how the defense is made out on the record. The complaint, to be sure, alleges that the bank was acting unlawfully in selling the bond, but it does not appear that Petrie knew the fact, and it would be a strong thing to charge him with notice or a duty to make inquiries as to how the bank was conducting its business, or to make the validity of the sale depend upon the fact alone, irrespective of the purchaser's knowledge. See Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543, 578, 579, 99 Am. Dec. 300; New York & N. H. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 73; Madison & I. R. Co. v. Norwich Sav. Soo. 24 Ind. 457, 462. The sale might have been lawful. It was not necessarily wrong. First Nat. Bank v. National Exch. Bank, 92 U. S. 122, 128, 23 L. ed. 679, 681. However, we need not stop at this preliminary difficulty or another suggested by the answer, on which no point was made. The answer alleges that the sale was without the authority or consent of the bank, and was not within the course of its regular business,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Wright, 2,138
...of the lottery ticket case (Catts v. Phalen, supra). It was also expressed by the Supreme Court in National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423, 23 Sup.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879, where, omitting the citations, it was said: question then is, leaving on one side the averment just quoted from ......
-
Sedco Intern., SA v. Cory, Civ. No. 77-85-D.
...(Second) of Torts § 889 comment c (1979). Perhaps more to the point is the following language from National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423, 425, 23 S.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879 (1903) (Holmes, But a person does not become an outlaw and lose all rights by doing an illegal act. See Connol......
-
Adams-Mitchell Co. v. Cambridge Distributing Co., 96
...were assumed to have been illegal it would not bar rescission because the illegal part was executory. National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423, 23 S.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879; Restatement, Contracts § The defendant's next contention is that Sager as a salesman had no authority to make t......
-
Gilchrist v. Hatch, 22,724
...Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. (1891), 139 U.S. 62, 11 S.Ct. 489, 35 L.Ed. 69; National Bank, etc., Co. v. Petrie (1903), 189 U.S. 423, 23 S.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879, 881, and cases cited; Bump, Fraudulent Conveyances (4th ed.) § 436, and cases cited; Almy v. Orne (1896), 165 Ma......
-
Stewart v. Wright, 2,138
...of the lottery ticket case (Catts v. Phalen, supra). It was also expressed by the Supreme Court in National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423, 23 Sup.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879, where, omitting the citations, it was said: question then is, leaving on one side the averment just quoted from ......
-
Sedco Intern., SA v. Cory, Civ. No. 77-85-D.
...(Second) of Torts § 889 comment c (1979). Perhaps more to the point is the following language from National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423, 425, 23 S.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879 (1903) (Holmes, But a person does not become an outlaw and lose all rights by doing an illegal act. See Connol......
-
Adams-Mitchell Co. v. Cambridge Distributing Co., 96
...were assumed to have been illegal it would not bar rescission because the illegal part was executory. National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423, 23 S.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879; Restatement, Contracts § The defendant's next contention is that Sager as a salesman had no authority to make t......
-
Trees v. Kersey, 24657.
...one party commits fraud, or there is duress, oppression, or undue influence over the other. See, e.g., Nat'l Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423, 23 S.Ct. 512, 47 L.Ed. 879 (1903) (agreement induced by fraud); In re Resorts Int'l, Inc., 181 F.3d 505, 512 (3rd Cir.1999); Singleton v. For......