Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Hamilton Nat. Bank, for Use and Benefit of Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided October 7, 1952No. 11322Published

1DissentMiller, Circuit Judge

(dissenting),

In my opinion ^ case presents a lain question o£ the law of negotiable instruments_

The rightS of the Pf^V* thf St0^en currency are governed by federal rather , , J^ ; , „ _ than by local law. Clearfield Trust Co. v. 318 U.S. 363, 366, 63 S.Ct 573, 87 L.Ed. 838; National Metropolitan Bank v. United States 323 U.S. 454, 456, 65 S.Ct. 354, 89 L.Ed. 383. The term “negotiabie» jts commercial sense is applied to paper wbicL passes in the business world from band to hand by endorsement and delivery, or by mere delivery, and which in the hands 0f a holder in due course is unaffected by…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Clearfield Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Shaw v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
  3. Murray v. LardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
  4. National Metropolitan Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. National Bank v. BurkhardtSupreme Court of the United States · 1880

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API