Meyers v. Valley Nat. Bank

E.D. Missouri

Meyers v. Valley Nat. Bank

17 F. Cas. 250, 18 Nat. Bank. Reg. 34

DecidedJuly 1, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. Cas. 250 (Meyers v. Valley Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyers v. Valley Nat. Bank, 17 F. Cas. 250, 18 Nat. Bank. Reg. 34 (E.D. Mo. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

TREAT, District Judge.

At the trial of this ease the first impression was that the defendant must be held estopped from disputing that Behr was the owner of the shares mentioned in the second cause of action. Further reflection upon an examination of the national bank act (sections 5201 and 5210, with the cognate sections in the Revised Statutes) has induced a different conclusion. The bank was prohibited from becoming the purchaser or holder of the shares in dispute. How, then, could it acquire any title thereto which it could transfer to Behr? The irregular and unlawful contrivances adopted cannot change the legal results. The bank had lawfully no stock to' convey, and though Behr may have appeared on the stock ledger as the owner of these shares, and the bank have paid him a cash dividend thereon, still he was not the lawful owner. A list of the stockholders, as required by section 5210, and the report thereof to the comptroller of the currency, is necessary for the protection of all interests, especially with reference to the double liability. ' Hence, as to the second cause of action, the finding is for the defendant. As to the first cause of action — conversion of the ten shares — the parties consent to a judgment for the value thereof, five hundred and fifty dollars. But the court is here met by the legal difficulty that the bank cannot purchase or hold those shares. As judgment for conversion vests the title to the converted property in the wrong-doer, and the wrongdoer in tins ease cannot hold the title, how can the court give a judgment which will contravene the law ? To cany out the agreement between the parties as to the said ten shares they should consent to an amendment of the petition, so that damages may be had for failure to transfer as demanded by plaintiff. The court can then assess nominal damages and costs, with the understanding that the transfer will be at once made to the plaintiff.

[For another action between the same parties in which The Valley National Bank claimed $6.000 upon a note given by the bankrupts endorsed by one Gustavus Hoeber see Case No. 5,549.]

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

TREAT, District Judge.

At the trial of this ease the first impression was that the defendant must be held estopped from disputing that Behr was the owner of the shares mentioned in the second cause of action. Further reflection upon an examination of the national bank act (sections 5201 and 5210, with the cognate sections in the Revised Statutes) has induced a different conclusion. The bank was prohibited from becoming the purchaser or holder of the shares in dispute. How, then, could it acquire any title thereto which it could transfer to Behr? The irregular and unlawful contrivances adopted cannot change the legal results. The bank had lawfully no stock to' convey, and though Behr may have appeared on the stock ledger as the owner of these shares, and the bank have paid him a cash dividend thereon, still he was not the lawful owner. A list of the stockholders, as required by section 5210, and the report thereof to the comptroller of the currency, is necessary for the protection of all interests, especially with reference to the double liability. ' Hence, as to the second cause of action, the finding is for the defendant. As to the first cause of action — conversion of the ten shares — the parties consent to a judgment for the value thereof, five hundred and fifty dollars. But the court is here met by the legal difficulty that the bank cannot purchase or hold those shares. As judgment for conversion vests the title to the converted property in the wrong-doer, and the wrongdoer in tins ease cannot hold the title, how can the court give a judgment which will contravene the law ? To cany out the agreement between the parties as to the said ten shares they should consent to an amendment of the petition, so that damages may be had for failure to transfer as demanded by plaintiff. The court can then assess nominal damages and costs, with the understanding that the transfer will be at once made to the plaintiff.

[For another action between the same parties in which The Valley National Bank claimed $6.000 upon a note given by the bankrupts endorsed by one Gustavus Hoeber see Case No. 5,549.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. Cas. 250, 18 Nat. Bank. Reg. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-valley-nat-bank-moed-1879.