Case Name: STAPYLTON v. TEAGUE; SAME v. ANDERSON et al.; SAME v. CARMICHAEL
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1898-02-15
Citations: 85 F. 407
Docket Number: Nos. 602, 603, and 604
Parties: STAPYLTON v. TEAGUE. SAME v. ANDERSON et al. SAME v. CARMICHAEL.
Judges: Before PAEDEE and McCOEMICK, Circuit Judges, and SWAYNE, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 85
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
STAPYLTON v. TEAGUE. SAME v. ANDERSON et al. SAME v. CARMICHAEL.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 15, 1898.)
Nos. 602, 603, and 604.
Bu,ns and Notes — Accommodation Papke — National Bank Receiveb.
A national bank receiver cannot recover upon notes made for the accommodation and sole benefit of the bank, without consideration.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida.
These were three suits brought by G. C. Stapylton, as receiver of the First National Bank of Ocala, upon notes made for the accommodation of the bank. Judgments were given for the defendants in the court below, and the plaintiff sued out these writs of error.
J. O. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.
B. H. Liggett, for B. L. Anderson and others.
Before PAEDEE and McCOEMICK, Circuit Judges, and SWAYNE, District Judge.

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 plaintiff 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.