Rhodes v. Webb
| Decision Date | 30 November 1877 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAM RHODES, Assignee, etc., <I>vs.</I> EDWARD WEBB. |
Edward Webb, for appellant.
Williams & Davidson, for respondent.
Action on a promissory note executed by defendant to the Marine Bank, the assignor of plaintiff.
The defendant claims that when the note fell due it was satisfied, and he discharged from liability by reason of a transaction between himself and Turrell, the president of the bank, and the cashier. The transaction is stated by the court below in its findings of fact, as follows: "That in the month of June, 1876, at St. Paul aforesaid, the said O. B. Turrell, for himself individually and for his own use and benefit, and not for or on account of, or on behalf of said bank, and without any authority whatever from said bank, agreed to purchase of said defendant ten shares of the stock of said bank, of one hundred dollars each, which was then owned and held by said defendant, and to pay him therefor on the first day of July, then following; that on or about said first day of July, 1876, said Turrell, for the purpose of completing said purchase of said stock, and without any authority whatever from said bank, directed the cashier of said bank to surrender up and deliver the said note to said defendant, and to take the said stock and hold the same in the place of said note to said bank; that thereupon said defendant then and there delivered said stock to said Turrell, and said Turrell delivered the same to said cashier, and said cashier, without any authority whatever from said bank, received the said stock and delivered up said note to the said defendant, Edward Webb."
The note never was in fact paid either by defendant or any one else. At the time of this transaction Webb was a director of the bank. The finding of fact is fully sustained by the evidence, unless in reference to the authority in the premises of Turrell and the cashier. It appears from the evidence that the entire control of all financial matters of the bank were left with the president and cashier, without any restriction imposed by by-laws or rules adopted by the board of directors, or stockholders, prescribing their powers, and they were not required to report...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. National City Bank
...in having Elmore's check, held up. He alone was interested in that. This matter was at least for the court sitting as a jury. Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292, 294; 7 C. J. § 166, p. 559; Farmers' Bank v. Ozias. (Mo. App.) 209 S. W. 580; Central Bank v. Thayer, 184 Mo. 61, 82 S. W. Complaint is......
-
State Bank of Isanti v. Mut. Tel. Co.
...contract with himself. If he attempted so to do, the bank was not bound thereby, and the evidence was properly excluded. Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292;Atwater v. Smith, 73 Minn. 507, 76 N. W. 253;Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277, 77 N. W. 963;St. P. & M. Trust Co. v. Howell, 59 Minn. 295, ......
-
State Bank of Isanti v. Mutual Teleph. Co.
...could not contract with himself. If he attempted so to do, the bank was not bound thereby, and the evidence was properly excluded. Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292; Atwater v. Smith, 73 Minn. 507, 76 N. W. 253; Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277, 77 N. W. 963; St. Paul & M. T. Co. v. Howell, 59......
-
State Bank of Isanti v. Mutual Telephone Company
...could not contract with himself. If he attempted so to do, the bank was not bound thereby, and the evidence was properly excluded. Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292; Atwater v. Smith, 73 Minn. 507, 76 N.W. Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277, 77 N.W. 963; St. Paul & M.T. Co. v. Howell, 59 Minn. 2......