|
|
Harriman National Bank v. Seldomridge, 249 U.S. 1 (1919)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Harriman National Bank v. Seldomridge, 249 U.S. 1 (1919)
Harriman National Bank v. Seldomridge No. 173 Argued January 31, 1919 Decided March 3, 1919 249 U.S. 1
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A, the cashier of the M. National Bank and in control of its affairs, acting in the name of B, its president, by correspondence induced the H. National Bank to agree to lend B a sum of money to be secured by the joint note of A and B and certain collateral. A then bought certain shares from T with a check on the M. Bank signed with B’s name, and forwarded by mail to the H. Bank a forged note and collaterals in apparent compliance with the loan agreement, upon receipt of which the H. Bank credited B with the amount greed on; but, in the meantime, the check to T had been paid by the M. Bank, and A, to meet it, had made a slip falsely purporting to show a deposit there by B of a check on the H. Bank for the amount of the proposed loan. Having at first credited B with the amount of the loan, the H. Bank, under instructions sent by A in the names of the M. Bank and of B, respectively, made bookkeeping entries transferring the credit to the M. Bank, and later, upon receiving notice from B to cancel A’s authority to act for the M. Bank, made further entries withdrawing the credit from the M. Bank’s account, and still later, upon learning that the M. Bank had failed, made additional entries to cancel the loan. B repudiated A’s action and denied liability.
Held: (1) that, as against the M. Bank, the H. Bank had the right to rescind and cancel the loan agreement for failure to comply with its conditions and for the fraud; (2) that the payment of the check to T and the making of the fraudulent deposit to meet it, having occurred before the H. Bank received the note and collateral or made any entry on its books, could not subject it to liability in favor of the M. Bank; (3) that the bookkeeping entries made by the H. Bank could not create such liability in the absence of any consideration moving to it from the M. Bank, and in the absence of any ground for estoppel. P. 10.
240 F. 111 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Harriman National Bank v. Seldomridge, 249 U.S. 1 (1919) in 249 U.S. 1 249 U.S. 2–249 U.S. 6. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HRAXAA1K3AKZ74Y.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Harriman National Bank v. Seldomridge, 249 U.S. 1 (1919), in 249 U.S. 1, pp. 249 U.S. 2–249 U.S. 6. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HRAXAA1K3AKZ74Y.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Harriman National Bank v. Seldomridge, 249 U.S. 1 (1919). cited in 1919, 249 U.S. 1, pp.249 U.S. 2–249 U.S. 6. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HRAXAA1K3AKZ74Y.
|