McDonough v. First National Bank
McDonough v. First National Bank
Opinion of the Court
The paper writing signed by J. S. Roberts, “ Com. missioner First National Bank, Houston,” and dated January 20, 1866, is not the contract of the First National Bank of Houston) unless the bank made it so by its' approval -and adoption, after its organization under the laws of the United States.
It may be that J. S. Roberts is individually liable to the plaintiff for the money he claims from the bank; but, not being called on so to do, we shall offer no opinion upon that question.
The plaintiff avers a consideration moving to the bank, and that the bank, after its organization, appropriated the benefits of his labor, money and influence. That it adopted and confirmed Roberts’s action, making that action its own.'
If this be true the bank is liable, and the question presented should have been submitted to a jury.
The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- B. F. McDonough v. First National Bank of Houston
- Cited By
- 11 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Plaintiff sued a National Bank on the following written promise to him— “ Houston, January 20, 1866. • Sir : We hereby agree to give you, by transfer, three thousand dollars in the stock of the first National Bank of Houston, when fully organized; also the sum of five thousand dollars, currency, whenever the. bank may be in operation, which shall be with as little delay as possible. This is in consideration of expenditures and services already rendered to the institution. (Signed,) Tours truly, J. S. Roberts, Com., First National Bank, Houston.” The defendant was not organized as a bank under the laws of the United States, until some two months after the date of this instrument; but the plaintiff averred a consideration moving to the defendant, and consisting of plaintiff’s services and outlays in effecting its organization; and further averred that the defendant, after its organization as a- bank, bad ratified and adopted the promise sued on, by paying plaintiff part of the amount and by exercising and enjoying the banking privileges obtained by plaintiff’s services and expenditures. The defendant demurred to the petition, and the court below sustained the demurrer. Held, that it was error to sustain the demurrer; for, although the promise .sued on was not the contract of the bank, unless adopted by it after its organization, and unless supported by a sufficient consideration, yet as the plaintiff averred such adoption and consideration, his petition alleged a good cause of action, and the liability of the bank depends upon questions of fact, to be determined by a jury. • ' .