Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Central National Bank

The position taken by the Court of Appeals in this case is tersely stated as follows in its opinion:

‘ i * * » bank, by requesting that payment of these invoices be made to it, impliedly, although innocently represented to Firestone that it held, by assignment from Stan Wood, a valid obligation of Firestone, whereas in truth, and in fact, such obligation was false, fictitious. and fraudulent. The bank lost no rights against Stan Wood, for all it had was the promise of Stan Wood to pay the loan.”

The bank in answer to that statement of the court claims that when a bank, having discounted a bill…