CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


ARMSTRONG V. AMERICAN EXCH. NAT'L BANK OF CHICAGO, 133 U. S. 433 (1890)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 133 U. S. 433 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Armstrong v. American Exch. Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 133 U.S. 433 (1890)

Armstrong v. American Exchange National Bank of Chicago

Nos. 1110, 1111

Submitted January 13, 1890

Decided March 3, 1890

133 U.S. 433

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Syllabus

On June 14, 1887, the Fidelity National Bank of Cincinnati drew a draft for $100,000 on the Chemical National Bank of New York City, payable to the order of the American Exchange National Bank of Chicago, and put it into the hands of one W., who delivered it for value to K. & Co. They endorsed it for deposit to their account in the Chicago Bank, which credited its amount to them and paid their checks against it. It was not paid. Held that the draft was a foreign bill of exchange; that W. did not act as the agent of the Cincinnati Bank, and that in a suit by the Chicago chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 133 U. S. 434

Bank against the receiver of the Cincinnati Bank, which had failed, to recover the amount of the draft, the Chicago Bank was a bona fide holder and owner of it for value, and want of consideration could not be shown by the receiver.

The fact that the draft was payable to the order of the plaintiff was not notice to it that W. was not its purchaser or remitter, and the Cincinnati Bank had represented to the plaintiff that W. was a bona fide holder of the draft, for his use in making good trades of his with K. & Co.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED