First National Bank v. Bevin

Supreme Court of Connecticut

First National Bank v. Bevin

45 A. 954, 72 Conn. 666, 1900 Conn. LEXIS 135

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 4, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A. 954 (First National Bank v. Bevin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First National Bank v. Bevin, 45 A. 954, 72 Conn. 666, 1900 Conn. LEXIS 135 (Colo. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Andrews, C. J.

This action was brought to recover the amount of two notes given by Mr. Bevin, the defendant, to the Natchaug Silk Company, and by that company indorsed to the plaintiff.' The notes are those mentioned in the preceding case as having been given by Mr. Bevin to that corporation in part payment for certain shares of its capital stock. The defense was that the said shares of stock were void; that the notes were for that reason without consideration ; that Mr. Bevin was induced to give the notes by the fraud of Mr. Risley; that the plaintiff took the notes under such circumstances that it was chargeable with knowledge of such want of consideration and fraud, and that, therefore, it could not recover.

The fraud of Mr. Risley, if there was any, cannot be imputed to the bank from the fact that he was its cashier. Farmers’ & Citizens’ Bank v. Payne, 25 Conn. 444; Butler v. American Toy Co., 46 id. 136; Farrel Foundry v. Dart, 26 id. 376, 382. It being decided in the former case that the said shares were not void but were valid, the defense fails. The plaintiff is entitled to recover, and there is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Andrews, C. J.

This action was brought to recover the amount of two notes given by Mr. Bevin, the defendant, to the Natchaug Silk Company, and by that company indorsed to the plaintiff.' The notes are those mentioned in the preceding case as having been given by Mr. Bevin to that corporation in part payment for certain shares of its capital stock. The defense was that the said shares of stock were void; that the notes were for that reason without consideration ; that Mr. Bevin was induced to give the notes by the fraud of Mr. Risley; that the plaintiff took the notes under such circumstances that it was chargeable with knowledge of such want of consideration and fraud, and that, therefore, it could not recover.

The fraud of Mr. Risley, if there was any, cannot be imputed to the bank from the fact that he was its cashier. Farmers’ & Citizens’ Bank v. Payne, 25 Conn. 444; Butler v. American Toy Co., 46 id. 136; Farrel Foundry v. Dart, 26 id. 376, 382. It being decided in the former case that the said shares were not void but were valid, the defense fails. The plaintiff is entitled to recover, and there is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A. 954, 72 Conn. 666, 1900 Conn. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-bevin-conn-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack