National Bank v. Grand Lodge
| Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
| Citation | 25 L.Ed. 75,98 U.S. 123 |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK v. GRAND LODGE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
This is an action by the Second National Bank of Saint Louis, Missouri, against the Grand Lodge of Missouri of Free and Accepted Ancient Masons, to compel the payment of certain coupons formerly attached to bonds issued in June, 1869, by the Masonic Hall Association, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, in relation to which bonds the Grand Lodge, Oct. 14, 1869, adopted the following resolution:——
'Rosolved, that this Grand Lodge assume the payment of the two hundred thousand dollars bonds, issued by the Masonic Hall Association, provided that stock is issued to the Grand Lodge by said association to the amount of said assumption of payment by this Grand Lodge, as the said bonds are paid.'
The court below instructed the jury, that, independently of the question of the power of the Grand Lodge to pass the resolution, it was no foundation for the present action, and directed a verdict for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the direction of the court; and judgment having been entered thereon, the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Mr. John C. Orrick for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. John D. S. Dryden, contra.
It is unnecessary to consider the several assignments of error in detail, for there is an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the plaintiff's recovery. The resolution of the Grand Lodge was but a proposition made to the Masonic Hall Association, and, when accepted, the resolution and acceptance constituted at most only an executory contract inter partes. It was a contract made for the benefit of the association and of the Grand Lodge,—made that the latter might acquire the ownership of stock of the former, and that the former might obtain relief from its liabilities. The holders of the bonds were not parties to it, and there was no privity between them and the lodge. They may have had an indirect interest in the performance of the undertakings of the parties, as they would have in an agreement by which the lodge should undertake to lend money to the association, or contract to buy its stock to enable it to pay its debts; but that is a very different thing from the privity necessary to enable them to enforce the contract by suits in their own names. We do not propose to enter at large upon a consideration of the inquiry how far privity of contract between a plaintiff and defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Maxwell, 4133.
...promisee) could also sue the promisor, the latter would be liable to two separate actions for the same debt. Second National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U.S. 123, 25 L.Ed. 75;1 Constable v. National S. S. Co., 154 U.S. 51, 72, 73, 14 S.Ct. 1062, 38 L.Ed. 903; In re Gubelman (C.C. A.) 13 F.(2d) ......
-
Durlacher v. Frazer
...282; 24 id., 178; 30 P. 609; 27 N.J. Eq. 155; id., 656; 34 id., 52; 11 U.S. 223; 43 Mich. 299; Harris on Subrogation, 1; 67 Mass. 317; 98 U.S. 123.) The case that of a contract made between the purchaser of mortgaged property, and vendor, whereby the former is said to have agreed to pay the......
-
Westside Mothers v. Haveman
...position that third-party donee beneficiaries could not sue the contracting parties in 1871. See, e.g., Second Nat'l Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U.S. 123, 124-24, 25 L.Ed. 75 (1878) (recognizing "the general rule that privity of contract is required" to support an action to enforce a contract);......
-
State v. The St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company
...v. Helpen, 47 Ark. 317; Ins. Co. v. Middleport, 31 F. 874; McAdaras v. King, 10 Mo.App. 578; Fitzgerald v. Barker, 70 Mo. 685; Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U.S. 123; Lawrence Fox, 20 N.Y. 16; Jones v. Higgins, 80 Ky. 409. Where evidence outside of a contract is necessary to show an obligation in......