Fifth Nat. Bank v. Armstrong
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
At Law. This is a controversy between the defendants concerning the ownership of a certain fund now in the custody of the complainant.
Read the full summary
At Law. This is a controversy between the defendants concerning the ownership of a certain fund now in the custody of the complainant. The case is to be decided with reference to the following facts: On June 6,1887, the Fanners’ National Bank of Portsmouth, Ohio, sent to the Fidelity National Bank a sight draft, in the usual form, drawn by Samuel J. Huston on Thomas Shelby, of Lexington, Mo., in the sum of $4,100. The draft was indorsed as follows: “Pay Fidelity National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, or order, for collection for Farmers’ National Bank of Portsmouth, Ohio. J. M. Wall, Cashier.” On…
1Opinion of the Court
Thayer, J.,
(after stating facts as above.') The indorsement by which the Fidelity Bank acquired the possession of the drafts in controversy was clearly a restrictive indorsement. It was an indorsement that destroyed the negotiability of the drafts, except for purposes of collection, and gave notice to all parties through whose hands they passed that they were the property of the Portsmouth and Staunton banks, respectively. By virtue of the indorsements alone, the Fidelity Bank did not acquire title to the drafts, but was merely constituted an agent for their collection. Thus far there is no…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- White v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Sweeny v. EasterSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- First National Bank v. First National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Hackett v. Reynolds, Lamberton & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re GubelmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Clark Sparks & Sons Mule & Horse Co. v. Americus Nat. BankDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1916
- Spooner v. Bank of DonalsonvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Hammond v. SittelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
- Pueblo v. ParkhurstSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.