Whitney v. First Nat. Bank

Supreme Court

Whitney v. First Nat. Bank

154 U.S. 664, 14 S. Ct. 1215, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 1559

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 20, 1880

DocketNo. 125

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 U.S. 664 (Whitney v. First Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitney v. First Nat. Bank, 154 U.S. 664, 14 S. Ct. 1215, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 1559 (1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is clearly settled by that of National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699. The identical question there decided is presented by the record, and we have no doubt it was the only question considered by the Supreme Court of the State. We certainly cannot say, from anything that appears in the bill of exceptions, that there might not have been enough evidence of' negligence oh the trial in the lower court to make it necessary to send the case to the jury. There is nothing whatever in the record to indicate that the positive instruction to the jury to bring in a vérdict for the defendant below was based on anything else than a ruling that, as a matter of law, a national bank was not liable for the loss of special deposits.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to reverse the judgment'of the county court,, and award a venire de novo. _ Reversed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is clearly settled by that of National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699. The identical question there decided is presented by the record, and we have no doubt it was the only question considered by the Supreme Court of the State. We certainly cannot say, from anything that appears in the bill of exceptions, that there might not have been enough evidence of' negligence oh the trial in the lower court to make it necessary to send the case to the jury. There is nothing whatever in the record to indicate that the positive instruction to the jury to bring in a vérdict for the defendant below was based on anything else than a ruling that, as a matter of law, a national bank was not liable for the loss of special deposits.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to reverse the judgment'of the county court,, and award a venire de novo. _ Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 U.S. 664, 14 S. Ct. 1215, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 1559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-first-nat-bank-scotus-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack