Legal Opinion
National Bank of the Republic v. Brooklyn City & N. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Decided May 26, 1877PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WALLACE, District Judge.
The diversion of the note in suit by Hutchinson & In-gersoll cannot avail the defendants, the makers, because, within the authority of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet [41 U. S.] 1, the plaintiff, having taken the note in good faith from Hutchinson & Ingersoll, though only as collateral to a pre-existing debt of the latter, cannot be affected by the equities between the antecedent parties. It is useless to review or discuss the numerous cases which hold that, where a note is thus taken as security, and there is no agreement, express or implied from the circumstances, that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- McBride v. . the Farmers' BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Atkinson v. BrooksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Gibson v. ConnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1847
- Barker v. CassidyNew York Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bank of the Metropolis v. First Nat. Bank of Jersey CityU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1884
- Boone v. Merchants' & Farmers' BankDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1922
- First Nat. Bank v. Bank of MonroeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1887
- Israel v. GaleCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896