City Bank of Columbus v. Farmers' & Planters' Bank of Baltimore

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland

City Bank of Columbus v. Farmers' & Planters' Bank of Baltimore

5 F. Cas. 746

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland

DecidedNovember 15, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. Cas. 746 (City Bank of Columbus v. Farmers' & Planters' Bank of Baltimore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City Bank of Columbus v. Farmers' & Planters' Bank of Baltimore, 5 F. Cas. 746 (circtdmd 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

TANEY, Circuit Justice.

The City Bank of Columbus is entitled to recover in this action, if the bank-note in question was taken for a valuable consideration, in the usual course of its business as a bank, bona fide, and under circumstances which would not have excited the suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence and care in business, that the note had been lost by, or stolen from, the rightful owner, and was not the property of the person who then held it. But if it was taken under circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence and caution, and led him to make further inquiry, before the note was taken, then the bank took it at its peril, and is not entitled to recover.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

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

TANEY, Circuit Justice.

The City Bank of Columbus is entitled to recover in this action, if the bank-note in question was taken for a valuable consideration, in the usual course of its business as a bank, bona fide, and under circumstances which would not have excited the suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence and care in business, that the note had been lost by, or stolen from, the rightful owner, and was not the property of the person who then held it. But if it was taken under circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence and caution, and led him to make further inquiry, before the note was taken, then the bank took it at its peril, and is not entitled to recover.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Cas. 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-bank-of-columbus-v-farmers-planters-bank-of-baltimore-circtdmd-1847.