Gambar halaman
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Gallagher y. Flannelly, Gardner y. Gardner, Garlock v. Dunkle, Garrett v. Teller, Gibbons, Godfrey v. Godfrey v. Gibbons, Graham, Murray v.

[ocr errors]

, Lowry, Buffalo Bank v.

Lusk, Hastings v. 614 526

M 615 643

M'Ginnis, Hoag v. 569

M'Cloughry, Clark v. 569

M’Dougall, Holliday v. 559

Malin, Herrick v. | Manhattan Company, Ver.

non v. Manhattan Company, Ex 264. parte

Marsh, Brownell v.

Merchants Bank, Allens v. 410

Miller v. Stocking,

Miln v. Patty, 137

Minor, Russell v.

Mott, Small v. 559 Murray v. Graham, 639 163



[ocr errors]

Halliday v. McDougall,
Harmon v. Bird,
Harvey v. Skillman's ex'rs,
Hastings v. Lusk,
Hawley, Stewart v.
Helmer v. Shoemaker,
Herrick v. Malin,
Hewlett v. Pearsall,
Hine's adm'rs, Doan v.
Hoag v. McGinnis,
Hoffman v. Carow,
Hogeboom, Williams v..
Holmes, Walker v.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]




Nellis v. Lathrop,
New York and Shawangunk

Mining Co. Ex parte, 636
Nichols v. Rensselaer Co. M.
Ins. Co.

125 | North River Bank v. Rogers, 649 155 Norton v. Woods,

520 637

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

Van Epps, Ives v.

155 Van Rensselaer v. Akin,, 549

Varick's ex'rs v. Briggs, 543 605

| Vernon v. The Manhattan 380 Company, ..

• 183 629 137 571

.. W 403 602 Walker v. Holmes, . 614 641 Walsh v. Ostrander,

178 244 Walsworth, Ford v.

657 633 Walters v. Sykes,

566 561 Wells & Spring, Evans v. 324 623 | Wheeler, Ryerss v.

148 611 | White, The People v. 167 - v. Blake

612 Wilkinson v. Douglass & Dunn,

559 | Williams v. Dakin & Bacon, 201 - v. Hodgeboom,

648 646 | Willink v. Renwick,

608 643 | Woods, Donaldson v.

395 646 - Norton v.

520 , Reynolds v.


Tallmadge v. Teller, Teller, Garrett v.

Tallmadge v. Thomas v. Dakin,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

General BANKING Law. This was an action brought by Anson Thomas, as president of an association called The Bank of Central New-York, formed under the act to authorize “the business of banking,” passed 18th April, 1838, for the recovery of three bills of exchange, drawn by the defendant

* This cause was argued in the supreme court at the July term, 1839, and decided by that court at the following October term. A majority of the court held, that the act to authorize the business of banking, passed 18th April, 1838, is a valid and constitutional law, on the assumption that it received the assent of two-thirds of the members eleeted to each branch of the legislature, and that it would be presumed to have been thus passed, until the fact was denied by plea; at all events the court refused to pass upon the question on a demurrer to a declaration by an association in a suit for the

Vol. XXII.

Thomas v. Danin. and discounted by that bank. The defendant demurred to the declaration, which commenced in these words : “ St. Lawrence county, ss. Anson Thomas, who is president of the bank of Central New-York, an association of persons formed for the purpose of banking, under the provisions of the act of the legislature of the state of New York, entitled

An act to authorize the business of banking ;' and who prosecutes on behalf of said association, pursuant to the provisions of said act, plaintiff, by Kirkland and Bacon, his attorneys, complains of Samuel D. Dakin, defendant in this suit, by the filing and service of a declaration and notice of a rule to plead according to the form of the statute, for that, whereas, &c. (seiting forth the common money counts, and an insumul computassent, alleging the indebtedness to be to The Bank of Central New-York, on the 20th May, 1839, and the promises to have been made to the bank, concluding to the damage of the bank of $10,000 ;) and,

recovery of a debt. All the judges concurred in the opinion that associations formed under the act are corporations.

During the session of the legislature in the winter of 1840, the Court FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS heard two cases argued, which had been brought up by writ of error from the supreme court, presenting the same questions which arose in Thomas v. Dakin, and the decision of which was based upon the opinions delivered in that cause. The cases were elaborately argued by counsel; and after advisement, opinions were delivered by THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, the CHANCELLOR, and Senator VERPLANCK, for an affirmance of the judgment of the supreme court, and by Senotor Root, for reversal. The judgment of the supreme court was affirmed, hy a vote of 22 to 1. Whereupon the following resolutions were adopted :

1. " Resolved, That the law entitled · An act to authorize the business of banking,' passed 18th April, 1838, is valid, and was constitutionally enacted, although it may not have received the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the legislature." This resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 to 1.

2. “ Resolved, That the associations organized in conformity with the provisions of the act entitled · An act to authorize the business of banking, passed April 1st, 1838, are not bodies politic or corporate, within the spirit and meaning of the constitution.” This resolution was adopted by a vote of 22 to 3.

The causes in which the above resolutions were adopteå, are : " Warner & Ray v. Beers, President of the North American Trust and Banking Company," and " Bolander v. Stevens, President of the Bank of Commerce, in New York," reported in a subsequent part of this volume.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »