First Nat. Bank of Concord v. Hawkins

First Circuit

First Nat. Bank of Concord v. Hawkins

82 F. 301, 27 C.C.A. 679, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 1897

DocketNo. 202

StatusPublished

This text of 82 F. 301 (First Nat. Bank of Concord v. Hawkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Nat. Bank of Concord v. Hawkins, 82 F. 301, 27 C.C.A. 679, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1972 (1st Cir. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error has filed a petition for a rehearing, resting on Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362, 17 Sup. Ct. 831, which was decided a few weeks after our decision in this case. The issue considered by the supreme court was the liability of a national bank as a stockholder in a state savings bank, while the question before us was as to its liability as a stockholder in another national bank. The question discussed by the supreme court was more largely that of ultra vires than that of the policy of the statutes relating to national banking associations, and its line of decisions which we understood to bind us in the case at bar was not particularly noticed by it. Therefore it does not follow beyond question that Bank v. Kennedy is decisive of the case at bar. Inasmuch as the defendant in error has undoubted means of relief by a writ of error, we, under the circumstances, are of the opinion that the petition should be denied. Petition for rehearing denied; mandate to stay until further order.

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

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error has filed a petition for a rehearing, resting on Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362, 17 Sup. Ct. 831, which was decided a few weeks after our decision in this case. The issue considered by the supreme court was the liability of a national bank as a stockholder in a state savings bank, while the question before us was as to its liability as a stockholder in another national bank. The question discussed by the supreme court was more largely that of ultra vires than that of the policy of the statutes relating to national banking associations, and its line of decisions which we understood to bind us in the case at bar was not particularly noticed by it. Therefore it does not follow beyond question that Bank v. Kennedy is decisive of the case at bar. Inasmuch as the defendant in error has undoubted means of relief by a writ of error, we, under the circumstances, are of the opinion that the petition should be denied. Petition for rehearing denied; mandate to stay until further order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. 301, 27 C.C.A. 679, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-of-concord-v-hawkins-ca1-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack