People Bank v. National Bank
Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
Citation | 25 L.Ed. 907,101 U.S. 181 |
Parties | PEOPLE'S BANK v. NATIONAL BANK |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Charles W. Thomas for the plaintiff in error.
No counsel appeared for the defendant in error.
This case was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. The court found the facts and gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon sued out this writ of error and brought the case here for review. The act of Congress regulating the procedure adopted seems to have been carefully complied with.
The People's Bank of Belleville, plaintiff, and the Manufacturers' National Bank of Chicago, defendant, in the court below, are respectively the plaintiff and the defendant in error here. For convenience, we shall speak of them in this opinion by their former designations.
The facts lie within a narrow compass, and there is no controversy about any of them.
On the 8th of August, 1873, Henry E. Picket made his ten promissory notes of that date, each for $5,000, all payable one year from date to his own order, indorsed by him, and bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent, payable semi-annually. Eight of these notes are described in the plaintiff's declaration. Picket delivered the notes to the defendant to be negotiated to the plaintiff, pursuant to a prior agreement between him and the defendant, that the latter should so negotiate the notes and apply the proceeds to the cancellation of other indebtedness then due from him to the defendant. On the 8th of August, 1873, M. D. Buchanan, vice-president, and one of the directors of the defendant, with the knowledge and consent of the president and cashier of the defendant, who were also directors, but without any authority from the board of directors as a board, or of a majority of them individually, or any notification to the board of directors as a board, transmitted the notes to the plaintiff with a letter, in which occurs the following language: This letter was written below one of defendant's letter-heads, and signed 'M. D. Buchanan, vice-president.' The notes were also indorsed, and below, The defendant was the plaintiff's correspondent at Chicago, and the plaintiff's account with the defendant was debited with $50,000 on account of the notes. At the same time, Picket's paper in the defendant's hands was cancelled to the same amount. All the notes were protested at maturity for non-payment, and due notice was given to the defendant. Nothing has been paid on either of the notes. Besides a special count in the declaration upon the guaranty of each of the eight notes involved in this suit, there was a common count for money had and received.
The case was submitted in this court without an oral argument. The opinion of the learned judge who decided the case in the Circuit Court is not in the record, and no brief has been submitted on behalf of the defendant. A few...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. St
...losing his title and the creditor of the thief getting a better title to the money than the thief had to it." In People's Bank v. Bank, 101 U. S. 181, 25 L. Ed. 907, defendant's cashier without authority guaranteed the payment of the notes of a customer which plaintiff bank discounted. The ......
-
City of Gadsden v. American Nat. Bank
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge ... Bill ... for injunction by the American National Bank against John A ... Camp, as Tax Collector, and the City of Gadsden. From a ... decree overruling a demurrer to the bill and granting the ... upon the rights of a national bank in respects for decision ... In ... People of State of New York v. Barker, 179 U.S. 279, ... 21 S.Ct. 121, 123, 45 L.Ed. 190, 193, it is declared: ... "To ... raise the question ... ...
-
State ex Inf. Atty-Gen. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.
...of directors as the price at which they would be sold. 14a C.J. 742; Chicago Railroad Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. 392; People's Bank v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 101 U.S. 181; Central Railroad Co. v. Trust Co., 114 Fed. 263; Central Trust Co. v. Ry. Co., 87 Fed. 815; Marbury v. Union Land Co., 6......
-
First Nat. Bank of Hagerman v. Stringfield
...235 P. 897 40 Idaho 587 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HAGERMAN, IDAHO, a Corporation, Appellant, v. C. W. STRINGFIELD and C. L. NELSON, Respondents Supreme Court of IdahoApril 14, 1925 ... (Commercial Nat. Bank v. Pirie, 82 F. 799, 27 C. C ... A. 171; 7 C. J., p. 815, sec. 746; People's Bank v ... National Bank of Chicago, 101 U.S. 181, 25 L.Ed. 907; ... Hanover Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 109 F. 421, 48 C. C. A ... ...