Summary

Louis Brandeis Texas Pacific Railway Company v…

It is made a crime to accept a deposit with knowledge of insolvency. Only when the bank's condition measures up to the prescribed standards of safety and liquidity may deposits be received.↑ The Comptroller of the Currency has insisted on the distinction between deposits and borrowings and has stated that to list borrowings as deposits-e.g., as certificates of deposit-is a grave misrepresentation of the condition of the bank.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Texas Pacific Railway Company v…

The fact that this bank had frequently secured private deposits by surety bonds lends no support to the contention that the power to pledge assets is necessary to carrying on the business of deposit banking. Such a practice would likewise be a departure from the policy of equal treatment of depositors; but the loss to other depositors resulting from such action would be far less serious. A pledge withdraws capital assets, while the giving of a surety bond merely increases the bank's expenses.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Texas Pacific Railway Company v…

In the case at bar, there is a specific finding that the transaction challenged was the only instance in which this bank had ever pledged assets to secure a private deposit. Surely action cannot be deemed a necessary incident of a business when only a single instance has been found in which it was taken. Moreover, even a practice commonly pursued may not be a necessary one.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature