Poorman v. Woodward
Supreme Court of the United States
This case was brought up by writ of. error from the Circuit Court of the United States for th'e southern district oí Ohio. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. that a certificate of deposit is in no sense cash, or money; it is simply an acknowledgment of a. debt, with a promise of payment. The transaction between Hood and Woodward & Dusenberry was simply the exchange ■ of one form of negotiable security for another.
Read the full summary
This case was brought up by writ of. error from the Circuit Court of the United States for th'e southern district oí Ohio. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. that a certificate of deposit is in no sense cash, or money; it is simply an acknowledgment of a. debt, with a promise of payment. The transaction between Hood and Woodward & Dusenberry was simply the exchange ■ of one form of negotiable security for another. This was clearly a breach of trust, and a perversion of the authority to use the note for the loan of money. He referred to the following cases: Thorold v. Sfnith, 11…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Catron
Hood and nine others, including the defendants, made a note of hand in Ohio, dated October 24th, 1849, for fifteen thousand dollars, payable to Woodward & Dusenberry thirty days after date, at their office in New T ork.
For himself, and as the agent of the other makers, Hood applied to the payees, Woodward & Dusenberry, for an advance' of money on the note, for the benefit of all the makers jointly. Woodward & Dusenberry agreed with Hood to advance, on a pledge of the note, as security, six thousand dollars; and Hood requested them to give to him their certificate of deposit for that sum, to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- MISSISSIPPI REAL ESTATE COM'N v. WhiteMississippi Supreme Court · 1991
- In re VietorCity of New York Municipal Court · 1897
- Jack v. RobieNew York Supreme Court · 1888