The Madison journal. (Tallulah, Madison Parish, La.) 1888-current, 1921-05-28
MR.. JUSTICE HOLMES DELIVERS
OPINION OF THE COURT
ON THE MERITS

On the merits we are of the opin-
ion that the Courts below went too
far. The question at this stage is not
what the plaintiffs may be able to
prove, or what may be the reasonable
Interpretation of the defendants acts,
but whether the plaintiffs have shown
a ground for relief if they can prove
that they allege. We lay on one side
as not necessary to our decision the
question of the defendants powers,
and, assuming that they act within
them, consider only whether the use
that according to the bill, they intend
to make of them will infringe the
plaintiffs rights. The defendants say
that the holder of check has a right
to present it to the bank upon which
it was drawn for payment over the
counter, and that however many
checks he may held, he has the same
right as to all of them and may pre-
sent them all at once, whatever his
motive or intent. They ask whether
a mortgage would be prevented from
foreclosing because he acted from
disinterested malevolence and not
from a desire to get money. But the
word fright" is one of the most de-
septive of pitfalls; it is so easy to
slip from a qualified meaning in the
premises to an unqualified one in the
conclusion. Most rights are qualified.
A man has at least as absolute right
to give his own money as he has to
demand money from party that has
made no promise to him; yet if ne
gives it to induce another to steal or
murder, the purpose of the act makes
it a crime.
A bank that receives deposits to be
drawn upon by checks of course
authorizes its depositors to draw
checks against their accounts and
holders of such checks to present
them for payment.
When we think of the ordI1ar!
case the right of the holder is so un
impede that it seems to US absolute
But looked at from another side, i
cannot be so. The interests Of tn
business also are recognized as rights
protected against injury, to create
: or less extent, and in case of confiic
between the claims of business on tn
5 one side and of third persons othe
lines have to be drawn that limi
both. A man has right to give &C
vice, but advice given for the sol
purpose of injuring another's bus
t ness and effective on larger seal
s might create cause Of action. BANK
L as we know them, could not exist
n they could not rely upon averages an
u lend a large part of the money thu
y they receive from their depositors G
q the assumption that not more than
IL certain fraction of it will be d
e manded on any one day. If withc'
i, word of falsehood, but acting fro
IL what we have called disiHterest'
II malvolence a man by persussit
al should organize and carry into effe
S. a run upon bank and ruin it, we C:
not doubt that an action would Il
= A similar result even if less col
70 plete in its effects, Is to be except
- from the course that the dafcniar
are alleged to intend, and to dett
20 mine whether they are authorized
q follow that course it is not enough
- refer to the general right of hold
Of checks to present them, but it
necessary to consider whether
collection of checks and PRESENT.
ne them in a body for the purpose
." breaking down petitioners busin'
as now conducted is justified by
,er Interior purpose in view.
-, If this were case of competiti
all in private Business, it would be hs
to admit tire justification of self
terest, considering the new CURE
its opinion as to public policy express
n, in statutes and decisions. But t
is not private business The pol
of the Federal Reserve Banks
tho governed by the policy Of the U.
ad. with regard to them, and to these
the. !atively feeble competitors. We
not need aid from the debators n
the statute under which the REESE
be Banks exist TO assume that the U.
age did not intend by the statute
sanstiom this sort Of warfare "
legitimate creatures Of the States