Nathan Clifford

Name: Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court
Author: Nathan Clifford

Summary

“Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Nathan Clifford. It explores elements such as cashier, defendant and transfer.

Quotes from Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court (Nathan Clifford)

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Neither the public at large nor third persons usually have any other knowledge of the powers of a cashier than what is derived from such usage, practice, and course of business; and it would be the height of injustice to hold that the bank as the principal to the cashier may set up their secret and private instructions to the officer, limiting his authority in respect to a particular case, and thus to defeat his acts and transactions as such agent, when the party dealing with him had not and could not have any notice of the secret instructions. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Official acts may be performed by a cashier which constitute the ordinary and customary functions of such an officer, and persons dealing with the bank are warranted in believing that the cashier is duly authorized to perform any customary duty falling within the scope of that category, and may to that extent hold the bank responsible, as if he was so authorized, however the fact may be, save only in cases where his want of authority is affirmatively proved, and actual knowledge of that fact is brought home to the third party. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Nothing appears in the case to show that the defendant bank ever adopted any by-law providing for a lien on the shares of a stockholder in case of his indebtedness to the bank, nor is it even shown in this case that the debt, if any, of the owner of the shares to the bank was contracted before the stock was pledged to the plaintiff, nor is there any thing given in evidence by the defendant to show that it was inequitable for the plaintiff to claim the benefit of the collaterals which the bank held to secure the payment of the note they discounted for the owners of the stock. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Promptitude and fidelity are expected of notaries in giving notice of protest in all jurisdictions where that duty is required of those officers, and it cannot be doubted that the court regarded the charge as imputing a quasi offence. In the case at bar the demand of transfer was made by the plaintiff bank in behalf of the purchaser of the stock, and the cashier answered that by order of the directors he could not allow the transfer, as the holder of the certificates was indebted to the bank. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Provision is made by the code of the State that persons are responsible for the damage they occasion, not merely by their acts but by their negligence, their imprudence, and their want of skill, which is not different in its application to this case from the rule which prevails at common law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Such an association may make contracts, sue and be sued, and complain and defend in any court of law or equity as fully as natural persons. They may also elect directors; and the board of directors may appoint a president, vice-president, cashier, and other officers, and define their duties. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Beyond all doubt, the validity of their debt is established by the verdict and judgment; and, if so, it requires neither argument nor authorities to show that the order given by the Circuit Court to provide for the payment of the amount recovered was proper and correct. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Suppose, however, the claim for damages resulting from the refusal of the bank to transfer the stock must be considered as a cause of action wholly distinct from the note and the collaterals, then it becomes necessary to examine the objections taken by the plaintiff bank to the validity of the defence of prescription. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ That the Circuit Court erred in holding and instructing the jury that the action rose ex contractu, and that it was not prescribed by one year. 2. That the Circuit Court erred in instructing the jury that the defendant was liable for the refusal of the cashier to permit the stock to be transferred. 3. That the Circuit Court erred in refusing the two prayers for instruction presented by the defendant. 4. ”

Nathan Clifford

Summary

Quotes from Case v. Bank — Opinion of the Court (Nathan Clifford)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature