TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kimball v. Cleveland

Samuel B. Kimball v. Joseph H. Cleveland

Kimball v. Cleveland, 4 Mich. 606 (1857)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1857
Judges
Copeland, Douglass, Johnson, Martin, Therefore
Citations
4 Mich. 606
Cited by 10
Headnotes
The Cashier of a Bank, in the absence of proof to the contrary, will be presumed to have the authority to turn out the notes and assets of the Bank, in payment of its indebtedness.
Summary
Error to Lenawee Circuit. It appeared from the bill of exceptions in this cause, that the action was commenced on a promissory note, dated September 19,1851, for the sum of $300, payable thirty days after date, to the order of William E. Kimball, at the Erie and Kalamazoo Railroad Bank, and signed by Samuel B. Kim-ball, and that this note was subsequently discounted by said Bank. Prior to the maturity of the note, the Bank being indebted to Cleveland, the note in question, together with other paper held by the Bank, was, by the Cashier, or by one of the clerks, by the Cashier’s direction, turned out to Cleveland in payment of sncli indebtedness. That on the day said note fell due, Cleveland caused said note to be presented to the Bank for payment. Payment was refused, and the note duly protested. It further appeared, that sometime during the same day, the maker, Samuel B. Kimball, caused to be tendered at the counter 'of the Bank, three hundred dollars in its own bills, in payment of said note. Hiram Comstock, who, it seems, was the acting Cashier in the Bank at the time of the tender, testified at the trial, that he did not think the note was in the Bank at that time, and that it did not then belong to the Bank. Under substantially these facts, the defendant’s counsel requested the Court to charge the jury “that neither the clerks nor the Cashier of the Bank had the power or authority to turn out the notes and assets of the Bank in payment of its indebtedness, without the consent of the Directors of the Bank.” The Court refused so to charge the jury, but, on the contrary, charged that the Cashier of the Bank was presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have authority to turn out the notes and assets belonging to the Bank, in payment of its indebtedness ; and to this ruling and charge the defendant excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Copeland

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Copeland, J.

The only question presented for our consideration in this case, is in regard to the charge of the Court that the Cashier was presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have the authority to turn out the notes and assets belonging to the Bank, in payment of its debts. We are of the opinion, that in this chame there is no error. That the transfer of the note *608 by the Cashier was within the general scope of his powers and duties, and it could make no difference, whether the transfer was made by the Cashier personally, or by one of the clerks, by the Cashier’s direction. Judgo Story says, the Cashier of a Bank is, virtute officii, generally entrusted with the notes, securities and other funds of the Bank, and is held out to the world by the Bank as its general agent, in the negotiation and disposal of them. Prima facie, therefore, ho must be deemed to have authority to transfer and endorse negotiable securities held by the Bank for its use, and in its behalf. No special authority for this purpose is necessary. (Weld vs. Bank of Passamaquoddy, 3 Mason C. C. Rep., 506.)

So again, in Fleckner vs. U. S. Bank ( 8 Wheat., 338 ), it was held, that the acts of the Cashier, done in the ordinary course of the business actually confided to such an officer, may well be deemed prima facie evidence that they fell within the scope of his duty. "Where the Cashier of a Bank assigns a certificate of sale owned by it, affixing the corporate seal to the assignment, his authority to do so will bo presumed until the contrary appears. (Bank of Vergennes vs. Warren et al., 7 Hill, 91 .)

There is nothing in this case showing a limitation of the powers and duties of the Cashier, by the action of the Board of Directors, or otherwise.

The judgment of the Court below must-be affirmed.

Present, Copeland, Johnson and Martin, J. J. Douglass, J., was not present at the argument, and, therefore, did not participate in the decision.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1860–1861: 11866–1867: 11878–1879: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11890–1891: 11894–1895: 11898–1899: 11900–1901: 11906–1907: 118602026peak 1860 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davenport v. Stone62 N.W. 722 (Mich. 1895)
  2. Preston National Bank v. George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co.47 N.W. 502 (Mich. 1890)
  3. Smith v. Lawson18 W. Va. 212 (1881)
  4. State Savings Bank v. Montgomery85 N.W. 879 (Mich. 1901)
  5. President of the Peninsular Bank v. Hanmer14 Mich. 208 (1866)
  6. Donnell v. Lewis County Savings Bank80 Mo. 165 (1883)

Most recent

  1. People v. Messer111 N.W. 854 (Mich. 1907)
  2. State Savings Bank v. Montgomery85 N.W. 879 (Mich. 1901)
  3. Continental National Bank v. Farris77 Mo. App. 186 (1898) · Dissent
  4. Davenport v. Stone62 N.W. 722 (Mich. 1895)
  5. Preston National Bank v. George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co.47 N.W. 502 (Mich. 1890)
  6. Donnell v. Lewis County Savings Bank80 Mo. 165 (1883)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Fleckner v. President of the Bank of the United States, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 338 (1823) 170

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