Stapylton v. Teague

Fifth Circuit

Stapylton v. Teague

85 F. 407, 29 C.C.A. 229, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1898

DocketNos. 602, 603, and 604

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 F. 407 (Stapylton v. Teague) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stapylton v. Teague, 85 F. 407, 29 C.C.A. 229, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (5th Cir. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

PARDEE, Circuit Judge.

These three cases are alike in the controlling facts, and may be disposed of in one opinion. On the undisputed facts in the case, the notes sued on were given without consideration and for the accommodation and advantage of the First National Bank of Ocala. The bank had full notice of this, if it is possible to charge a bank with notice to and the knowledge of its managing officers. The bank was not an innocent bolder, nor even a, holder for value, and to allow a recovery in the interest of the bank would be the grossest injustice. The receiver bringing these suits stands in the shoes of the bank. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants; and, as in no aspect of the case do we think the [408]*408plaintiff can recover, it is wholly unnecessary to consider in detail the elaborate assignments of error. The judgments of the lower court were right, and they are affirmed.

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

PARDEE, Circuit Judge.

These three cases are alike in the controlling facts, and may be disposed of in one opinion. On the undisputed facts in the case, the notes sued on were given without consideration and for the accommodation and advantage of the First National Bank of Ocala. The bank had full notice of this, if it is possible to charge a bank with notice to and the knowledge of its managing officers. The bank was not an innocent bolder, nor even a, holder for value, and to allow a recovery in the interest of the bank would be the grossest injustice. The receiver bringing these suits stands in the shoes of the bank. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants; and, as in no aspect of the case do we think the [408]*408plaintiff can recover, it is wholly unnecessary to consider in detail the elaborate assignments of error. The judgments of the lower court were right, and they are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F. 407, 29 C.C.A. 229, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stapylton-v-teague-ca5-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack