The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880. Page: 27
xiv, 928 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
BANK OF SREMAN V. APPERSON.
by the officers. But, more than this, the defence is that the
consideration of this note has failed by reason of a failure of
title and diminution in quantity of the land, and that by the
contract of purchase the money was not to be paid until the
title was satisfactory. There is not a single circumstance or
fact in the proof which even tends to show that the plaintiff
had any knowledge that there were such defences to the note,
or of the facts upon which they were predicated. It does not
follow because the plaintiff knew the note was given for land
that it knew the facts as to the title or quantity. The whole
argument of defendants is grounded upon the assumption that
because the face of the note itself conveyed a knowledge that
there was a contract for land, that the land lay in Arkansas,
that the payee was an administrator, and because he was
pledging a note of $1,500 for a loan of $500 at an enormous
interest of 4 per cent. a month, therefore, in the language
of the brief, "the bank had notice or knowledge that there
was a probable defence to the note."
Now, if the decisions of the supreme court already cited,
and many others, mean anything, they forbid, in this court,
that any circumstance short of actual knowledge of the facts
constituting the defence shall be taken to defeat the holder of
his right to recover. The proof showed that in Texas, where
this bank resides, the rate of interest was lawful and not
unusual, and therefore no imputation of bad faith can be
based upon that circumstance. As to the fact that the ne-
gotiator of the loan was an administrator, it is wholly imma-
terial. He may have needed the money for the purposes of
the estate. The note may have belonged to him, having been
taken in settlement for his commissions, or for a debt, or for
a distributive share of the estate, for anything the bank knew
to the contrary. He was the payee; the legal title was in
him, and the bank need not, under the commercial law of the
United States, trouble itself to inquire into the facts.
Any man may pledge a large collateral for a small loan,
and they are often out of all proportion to each other. I
could see in the proof nothing tending to show that the bank
had actual notice of the fact that the title to the land had
failed, or the quantity was diminished, or the quality insuffi-_ _
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
Boyle, Peyton. The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880., legislative document, 1881; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc36333/m1/41/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.