McFerson v. National Surety Co.
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sneeden v. City of Marion, Ill. (7th Cir. 1933)
- First American Bank & Trust Co. v. Town of Palm Beach (Fla. 1928)
- Flower v. Strevell-Patterson Finance, Inc. (Colo. 1960)
- Pottorff v. El Paso-Hudspeth Counties Road Dist. (5th Cir. 1933)
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Pottorff (5th Cir. 1933)
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MaryLand v. Kokrda (10th Cir. 1933)
- Sneeden v. City of Marion (District Court, E.D. Illinois 1932)
- Schumacher v. Eastern Bank & Trust Co. (4th Cir. 1931)
- Smith v. Baltimore & OR Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1931)
- Melaven v. Hunker (N.M. 1931)
- Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Consolidated School District No. 3 (Minn. 1928)
- Austin v. Lamar County (Tex. App. 1928)
- Commercial Guaranty State Bank v. City of Longview (Tex. App. 1928)
- Pixton, State Bank Commissioner v. Perry, County Treas. (Utah 1928)
- Parks v. Knapp (8th Cir. 1928)
- Ainsworth v. Kruger (Mont. 1927)
- Williston v. Ludowese (N.D. 1926)
- Cameron v. Christy (Pa. 1926)
- City of Williston v. Ludowese (N.D. 1926)
- People v. Williams (Colo. 1999)
- People Ex Rel. Nelson v. Wiersema State Bank (Ill. 1935)
- In re Broderick (New York Supreme Court 1931)
- Bliss v. Mason (Neb. 1931)
- Lamb v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (Ill. App. Ct. 1930)
- Grigsby v. the People's Bank (Tenn. 1928)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error, who at the time of the beginning of this action was in charge of the insolvent Louisville Bank, which had theretofore absorbed the Lafayette Bank, sought to recover from the defendant in error certain securities received by the defendant in error under the following circumstances: Each of the above-named banks had agreed with the county treasurer of Boulder county that, in consideration of his depositing county moneys with them, they would give him indemnifying bonds. In pursuance of that agreement the defendant in error' became surety upon the bonds of the said banks, and received from each bank collateral to indemnify it against loss. It is the collateral thus deposited with the defendant in error, which the bank commissioner seeks by suit to recover.
For the plaintiff in error it is claimed that the deposit of this collateral was void as an attempt to prefer one creditor over others, and hence it may be recovered. We see no ground for this contention.
The right of the treasurer to deposit the money in the banks is not involved, and that right is of course undoubted. There is no question that a bank, in order to secure deposits, may give security for them. The giving of the indemnifying bonds was within the authority of the banks, and was a matter of ordinary business. The banks owned the securities pledged to the surety company, and had full right so to pledge them. It is further undoubted that when collateral has been pledged as security the pledgor has no right to such collateral until the purpose of the pledge has been fulfilled. It is unnecessary to cite authorities on these points.
The various questions of pleading raised by the briefs need not be considered.
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.