Ingraham v. President of Maine Bank

13 Mass. 208
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

* Parker, C. J.

The money demanded in this action cannot be recovered, if, by means of the misconduct of Hale, for whose faithful conduct the plaintiff and his co-sureties were responsible, happening after the execution of their bond, the defendants have been damnified to the extent of the sum explained. Now, although a deficit existed, equal to this sum, before the execution of this bond, and which may have been covered by an antecedent bond; yet, the fact proved, that Hale took money from the vaults, without the knowledge of the directors, and repaid it to those of whom he had borrowed it, was a breach of the condition of his bond. For the money, when placed in the vaults, became the property of the defendants ; and the transaction cannot be distinguished from an actual payment from his own funds to supply the defalcation, and a removal afterwards of the funds of the bank without the consent of the defendants.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

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

Ingraham v. President of Maine Bank, 13 Mass. 208 (Mass. 1816).

13 Mass. 208 (Ingraham v. President of Maine Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Independent School District v. Hubbard
110 Iowa 58 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)
County of Pine v. Willard
1 L.R.A. 118 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)
Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian Orchard Mills
17 N.E. 496 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
State ex rel. Southern Bank v. Atherton
40 Mo. 209 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1867)
President of the Atlantic Bank v. President of the Merchants' Bank
76 Mass. 532 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1858)