The United States, Plaintiffs v. the City Bank of Columbus

• Decision Date: 01 December 1856
• Parties: THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS, v. THE CITY BANK OF COLUMBUS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

60 U.S. 385

19 How. 385

15 L.Ed. 662

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS, v. THE CITY BANK OF COLUMBUS.

December Term, 1856

THIS case came up on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Cushing (Attorney General) for the United States, and by Mr. Stanberry for the defendant.

Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause is brought before us upon a certificate of a division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio.

The United States instituted their action of assumpsit against the defendants, for the recovery of a sum of money, laying their damages at two hundred thousand dollars.

The declaration consisted of two counts. The first was upon an alleged agreement between the United States and the City Bank of Columbus, whereby the latter, on the 1st day of November, 1850, contracted and undertook to transfer for the plaintiff's the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, the money of the plaintiffs, from the city of New York to the city of New Orleans, and to deposit the same at the latter place, in the treasury of the United States, by the 1st day of January, 1851, free of charge.

In this count, the receipt of the money by the bank, viz: one hundred thousand dollars, for the purposes stated, the failure to make the transfer and deposit in conformity with the agreement, the conversion of the money so received by the bank to its own use, are all expressly averred.

The second count was the common indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received to the plaintiffs' use. Upon the trial before the jury of the issues joined by the parties, at the October term of the Circuit Court, in the year 1855, the plaintiffs, in order to establish the alleged agreement and undertaking on the part of the bank, gave in evidence the following papers, viz:

First, a letter from Thomas Moodie, cashier of the City Bank of Columbus, in these words:

'CITY BANK OF COLUMBUS,

Columbus, Ohio, October 26, 1850.

'Hon. Thomas Corwin, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington city.

'SIR: The bearer, Col. William Miner, a director of this bank, is authorized, on behalf of this institution, to make proposals for the purchase of United States stocks to the amount of one hundred thousand dollars. Any arrangement he may make will be recognized and fully carried out by this bank. He is also authorized, if consistent with the rules of the Treasury Department, to contract on behalf of this institution for the transfer of money from the East to the South or West, for the Government.

'I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

'THOMAS MOODIE, Cashier.'

Second. The following contract:

'W. CITY, November 1, 1850.

'This will certify that I have contracted with the United States Treasury, as the agent of the City Bank of Columbus, to transfer $100,000 from New York to New Orleans, to be deposited in the treasury at the latter-named city by the first day of January, 1851, free of charge. I have, in pursuance of said contract, this day received a draft in my own name for $100,000 on the United States Treasury at New York city, which is to be accounted for on said contract.

'WILLIAM MINER.'

'Upon the production of these papers, and proof of their execution, and further proof that said letter was the act of said cashier alone, without the knowledge or sanction of the directory of said bank, before, at the...