The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-07
VICTORY FOR RECEIVERS.
Bank of fnnesota=Re Iieved of Liza
bility ON a Note,

bility ON Note.
The receivers Of the Bank Of Minnesota
won marked victory In the supreme court
yesterday when Justice Mitchell handed down
decision against the.Fort Dearborn National
BANK OF Chicago, who sued on a cashiers
note for 81, 600. The syllabus of the decision
recites the facts and findings in the case as
follows: 80
Fort Dearborn National Bank of Chicago, re-
sPohqent, vs.. Frank A. Seymour and WILL
isn NJ d; Llghtner, as receivers Of the Bank
OF Minnesota, appel ants.
"A pank In Chicago was the correspondent
OF bank in ST. Paul in which the latter
Kept funds on deposit.
The cashier Of the St. Paul bank was
secretary and large stakeholder in a land
company; the president and two Of the d.
ested in and stockholders of the land com
pany; The land company was indebted to
certain parties IN the sum of s25, 900, which
mad TO be met and paid
Inc cashier of the st. Paul bank in his
Individual name, wrote to the cashier of the
chicago bank that he had been unexpectedly
called on to take up $50, eco for company in
Whlch ne was interested and did not want to
borrow the money from his own bank and
ASKING II the Chicago bank would place an
encloseu note OF the land company for S25,-
W. TO the account of the ST. Paul bank ad-
Qlng mat the latter bank would not draw
against II To this the cashier Of the Chi
caso bank replied that he had placed the
proceeds OF the land company note to the
credit OF the st. Paul bank with the under
s1a d 1a that none Of it was to be paid out
ana that they reserved the privilege of ch9rg-
ing the land company note to the st. Paul
6ank at their option. The cashier of the
81: Paui bank replied consuming to and ac-
ceptlng these conditions. The Chicago bank
then discounted the land company note and
paced the proceeds to the credit of the st.
Paul bank and the latter then paid the
amount l$25, COO to the land company. The
st. Pau! bank was not party to the note of
tne iand company and had no interest IN 1t.
None Of the officers of the st: Paul bank
except those who were stockholders in the
lana company and interested i'll the transac-
ton in their own behalf adversely to the
interests Of the bank, ever authorized, knew
OF or ratlhed the agreement between their
cashier and the Chicago bank, and had 10
notice that the credit Of $25, 900 by that bank
TO the st. Paul bank was not an actual and
unconditional credit for cash deposited
Held, that the agreement of the cashier of
the St Paul bank that the Chicago bank
might charge up the note of the land COM
pany to the st. Paul bank was wholly with
out the scope Of his authority that It amount
ed to an attempt to pledge the responsibility
OF the st; Paul bank for the payment Of the
note OF the land company in order to enable
that company to raise money to pay its own
debts; that this was in law and fact a fraud
on the st. Paul bank of all which facts the
CncaSo bank was chargeable with notice.
That the knowledge of the transaction by
the cashier of the St. Paul bank or by those
officers who were interested with him in the
land company and were acting for them
selves and adversely to the interests of the
bank, did not constitute notice to the bank.
That after having thus credited the st.
company note and after that bank had paid
over the amount to the land company as it
expected and knew would be done the Chi
cago bank had no right to charge up the
land company note to the account of the st.
Paul bank.
The. rule that principal must either
his agent as an entirety; that he cannot ac-
cept the benefits and repudiate the conditions
or Liabilities attached has application to
Mitchell T.