Mandeville v. Union Bank of Georgetown

Supreme Court

Mandeville v. Union Bank of Georgetown

13 U.S. 9, 3 L. Ed. 639, 9 Cranch 9, 1815 U.S. LEXIS 361

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 18, 1815·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

It is entirely immaterial whether this question be governed by the laws of Virginia or of Maryland' By neither of them can the discounts claimed by the Plaintiff in error be allowed.

By making a note negotiable in bank, the maker authorizes the hank to advance on his credit to the owner of the note the sum expressed on its face.

It would be a fraud on the bank to set up offsets against tins note in consequence of any transactions between the parties. These offsets arevaivd and cannot, after the note has been discounted, be again s t up.

The. judgment is to be affirmed with damages at the rate of 6 percent, per annum.

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

Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

It is entirely immaterial whether this question be governed by the laws of Virginia or of Maryland' By neither of them can the discounts claimed by the Plaintiff in error be allowed.

By making a note negotiable in bank, the maker authorizes the hank to advance on his credit to the owner of the note the sum expressed on its face.

It would be a fraud on the bank to set up offsets against tins note in consequence of any transactions between the parties. These offsets arevaivd and cannot, after the note has been discounted, be again s t up.

The. judgment is to be affirmed with damages at the rate of 6 percent, per annum.

Mandeville v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 13 U.S. 9, 3 L. Ed. 639, 9 Cranch 9, 1815 U.S. LEXIS 361 (1815).

Pincite

13 U.S. 9 (Mandeville v. Union Bank of Georgetown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related