|
|
Bank of America v. Parnell, 352 U.S. 29 (1956)
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.
Bank of America v. Parnell, 352 U.S. 29 (1956)
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v. Parnell Argued October 18, 1956 Decided November 13, 1956 * 352 U.S. 29
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Alleging diversity of citizenship, petitioner, a bank in California, sued in a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania to recover the value of certain bonds alleged to have been converted in Pennsylvania. They were bearer bonds of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, guaranteed by the United States, maturing in 1952 but called for redemption in 1944. They disappeared from petitioner’s possession in 1944, and respondent Parnell, acting for one Rocco, presented them in 1948 to respondent bank in Pennsylvania, which collected the proceeds and paid them to Parnell, who paid them to Rocco. On the theory that state law governed, the District Court instructed the jury that respondents had the burden of showing that they took the bonds in good faith, without knowledge or notice of defect in title. Verdicts and judgments were for petitioner, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that, under federal law, the bonds were not "overdue" when presented to respondent bank, and petitioner had the burden of showing notice and lack of good faith on the part of respondents.
Held: the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that Court for further proceedings. Pp. 30-34.
(a) This litigation is purely between private parties, it does not touch the rights and duties of the United States, and the issues of burden of proof and good faith are governed by the law of Pennsylvania, where the transactions took place. Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, distinguished. Pp. 32-34.
(b) That the floating of securities by the United States might be adversely affected by the local rule of a particular State regarding the liability of a converter is too speculative and remote a possibility to justify the application of federal law to transactions essentially of local concern. Pp. 33-34.
(c) A decision with respect to the "overdueness" of the bonds is a matter of federal law. P. 34.
(d) The circumstances of these cases require reversal of the judgments of the Court of Appeals, but not reinstatement of the judgments of the District Court. P. 34.
226 F.2d 297 reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Bank of America v. Parnell, 352 U.S. 29 (1956) in 352 U.S. 29 352 U.S. 30. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IHG51XCLFVSMYM5.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Bank of America v. Parnell, 352 U.S. 29 (1956), in 352 U.S. 29, page 352 U.S. 30. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IHG51XCLFVSMYM5.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Bank of America v. Parnell, 352 U.S. 29 (1956). cited in 1956, 352 U.S. 29, pp.352 U.S. 30. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IHG51XCLFVSMYM5.
|