Citizens Bank of Michigan City v. Opperman

Supreme Court

Citizens Bank of Michigan City v. Opperman

249 U.S. 448, 39 S. Ct. 330, 63 L. Ed. 701, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2101

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 14, 1919

Docket234

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 249 U.S. 448 (Citizens Bank of Michigan City v. Opperman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Citizens Bank of Michigan City v. Opperman, 249 U.S. 448, 39 S. Ct. 330, 63 L. Ed. 701, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2101 (1919).

Pincite

Opinion

*449 Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Section 7855, Bums’ Anno. Indiana Statutes, 1914, provides: "A married woman shall not enter into any contract of suretyship, whether as indorser, guarantor, or in any other manner; and such contract, as to her, shall be void.” Relying upon this, defendant, in error sued to recover a certificate of National Bank stock issued in her ñame and held by plaintiff in error bank as security for .her husband’s indebtedness. The bank defended upon the theory that exercising rights given by § 12 of the National Bank Act (13 Stat. 102; Rev. Stats., § 5139) she transferred the stock to her husband and in turn he had hypothecated it to secure ids personal note. Being of the opinion that the National Bams: 'Act did not inhibit an inquiry concerning all the circumstances, the trial court permitted introduction of proof to tnat end; the jury found the bank had knowledge of facts sufficient to charge it with notice that the transaction amounted to a contract of suretyship by the wife; and judgment, in her favor was affirmed by .the State Supreme Court. A petition to rehear was overruled May 18, 1917, and at that time the judgment below became final for purposes of review here. Andrews v. Virginian Ry. Co., 248 U. S. 272; Chicago Great Western R. R. Co. v. Basham, ante, 164. This writ of error was applied for July 13, 1917— within three months.

The Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726, 727, 728, limited our power to review judgments or dé-., crees in state courts which became final subsequent to date when it went into effect (October 6, 1916), upon writs of error, ,to those cases "where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the *450 validity of a statute of,. or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity.” It also authorized this court to bring up for review and determination by certiorari “any cause wherein a final judgment or decree has been rendered or passed by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, ■ or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is against their validity.” And it further distinctly directed .that except as to wits of certiorari addressed to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands “no wit of error, appeal, or wit of certiorari intended to bring up any cause for review by the Supreme Court shall be allowed or entertained unless duly applied for within three months after entry of the judgment or decree complained of.” Where a petition for rehearing is entertained the judgment does not become final for purposes of our review until such petition has been deified or otherwise- disposed of and the three months’ limitation begins to run' from date of such denial or other disposition.

, Plaintiff in error presented its petition here for a wit of certiorari touring up the present cause April 15, 1918; this was denied April 22, 1918. Manifestly, the ápplication was not within the prescribed time.

An examination of the record shows that in the courts below there was not really drawn in question (Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586, 595) “the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States” or “the validity of a statute of, or an *451 authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.” .Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the writ of error and it must be

■Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*449 Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Section 7855, Bums’ Anno. Indiana Statutes, 1914, provides: "A married woman shall not enter into any contract of suretyship, whether as indorser, guarantor, or in any other manner; and such contract, as to her, shall be void.” Relying upon this, defendant, in error sued to recover a certificate of National Bank stock issued in her ñame and held by plaintiff in error bank as security for .her husband’s indebtedness. The bank defended upon the theory that exercising rights given by § 12 of the National Bank Act (13 Stat. 102; Rev. Stats., § 5139) she transferred the stock to her husband and in turn he had hypothecated it to secure ids personal note. Being of the opinion that the National Bams: 'Act did not inhibit an inquiry concerning all the circumstances, the trial court permitted introduction of proof to tnat end; the jury found the bank had knowledge of facts sufficient to charge it with notice that the transaction amounted to a contract of suretyship by the wife; and judgment, in her favor was affirmed by .the State Supreme Court. A petition to rehear was overruled May 18, 1917, and at that time the judgment below became final for purposes of review here. Andrews v. Virginian Ry. Co., 248 U. S. 272; Chicago Great Western R. R. Co. v. Basham, ante, 164. This writ of error was applied for July 13, 1917— within three months.

The Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726, 727, 728, limited our power to review judgments or dé-., crees in state courts which became final subsequent to date when it went into effect (October 6, 1916), upon writs of error, ,to those cases "where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the *450 validity of a statute of,. or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity.” It also authorized this court to bring up for review and determination by certiorari “any cause wherein a final judgment or decree has been rendered or passed by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, ■ or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is against their validity.” And it further distinctly directed .that except as to wits of certiorari addressed to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands “no wit of error, appeal, or wit of certiorari intended to bring up any cause for review by the Supreme Court shall be allowed or entertained unless duly applied for within three months after entry of the judgment or decree complained of.” Where a petition for rehearing is entertained the judgment does not become final for purposes of our review until such petition has been deified or otherwise- disposed of and the three months’ limitation begins to run' from date of such denial or other disposition.

, Plaintiff in error presented its petition here for a wit of certiorari touring up the present cause April 15, 1918; this was denied April 22, 1918. Manifestly, the ápplication was not within the prescribed time.

An examination of the record shows that in the courts below there was not really drawn in question (Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586, 595) “the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States” or “the validity of a statute of, or an *451 authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.” .Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the writ of error and it must be

■Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 U.S. 448, 39 S. Ct. 330, 63 L. Ed. 701, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-bank-of-michigan-city-v-opperman-scotus-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack