Schmidt v. Bank of Commerce
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. The facts, which involve the effect of fraudulent inducement to make commercial paper and the rights of comakers to be relieved of liability in such case, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hughes
This suit was brought by the Bank of Commerce in the District Court for Socorro County in the Territory of New Mexico to recover upon two promissory notes. The plaintiff bank was the payee and the defendants Broyles, Schmidt & Story, Crossman, Brown, Pratt (alias Anderson), Léwis and Evans, were the makers. Broyles de faulted; the other defendants answered, alleging in substance that they had signed the notes for Broyles’ accommodation and had been induced to sign by the fraudulent representations of the bank. Upon the trial, the motion of the plaintiff for a direction of. a verdict was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Phoenix Railway Co. v. LandisSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Ming v. WoolfolkSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Santa Fe Central Railway Co. v. FridaySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Work v. United Globe MinesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
3Cited by14 opinions
- Tremont Trust Co. v. NoyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Garcia v. CoffmanNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1997
- Barton v. Farmers' State BankTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Cohen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1949
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.