TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Exchange National Bank of Atchison v. The Hibernia National Bank of New Orleans

The EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF ATCHISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ORLEANS, Defendant-Appellee

The Exch. Nat'l Bank of Atchison v. The Hibernia Nat'l Bank of New Orleans, 407 F.2d 840 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 13, 1969
Docket
No. 26573
Judges
Coleman, Goldberg, Per Curiam, Simpson
Citations
407 F.2d 8401969 U.S. App. LEXIS 8927

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The Exchange National Bank of Atchison, in the State of Kansas, sued the Hibernia National Bank of New Orleans for $50,000, plus Attorney’s fees and costs. The District Court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, and we affirm.

An officer of Hibernia obtained a personal loan of $70,000 from Exchange. Twenty thousand was repaid but there was default as to' the remainder. Plaintiff alleged that in 1961, 1962, and 1963' the officer had engaged in illegal bank *841 ing activities which were brought to the attention of the defendant. He, nevertheless, was allowed to remain with Hibernia until December, 1963. Thus, said the plaintiff, the defendant, by continuing the employment, held the official out to be a person of honesty and integrity, relied upon in making the loan. It is asserted, therefore, that Hibernia is obligated to pay the debt.

It is to be noted that Exchange was not a customer or depositor of Hibernia. There is no allegation that the defendant was consulted about the loan or had any knowledge of it. Thus, it is obvious that plaintiff made the loan at its sole discretion. The loan was personal and the defendant was in no way a party to it.

Under these circumstances, we are compelled to agree with the District Court that there is no possible legal basis upon which Hibernia might be held liable. By retaining the officer in its employ the bank did not represent or warrant to the appellant or anyone else that he could or would pay his personal debts, or that, upon default the bank would pay for him.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list