McBoyle v. Union National Bank
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from an order refusing a new trial. John Ellsworth, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Upon further consideration of this case, after a rehearing before the court in Bank, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the court in Department is correct. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Sloss, there rendered, it is said that the National Banking Act does not give a national bank “power to deal in stocks or bonds.” The question of the right or power to deal or invest in bonds is not involved. The words “or bonds,” in the passage quoted, and subsequently, are surplusage and are stricken from the opinion. As thus amended the opinion of the court in Department is adopted as…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Charlotte v. National Exchange Bank of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Weckler v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- First National Bank v. Greenville Oil & Cotton Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1901
- Wild v. Bank of PassamaquoddyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1825
- First National Bank v. National Exchange BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1874
3Cited by5 opinions
- Michelsen v. PenneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- National Bank of San Mateo v. WhitneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- California Bank v. DanielArizona Supreme Court · 1930
- McBoyle v. Union Nat'l BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Michelsen v. PenneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943