National Bank of Xenia v. Stewart
Cases that cite this one
51 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,292 in Re Lloyd C. March, Jr., Debtor. Coastal Virginia Bank v. Lloyd C. March, Jr., Unsecured Creditors Committee, Amicus Curiae (4th Cir. 1993)
- Baldwin v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1936)
- Schneider v. Thompson (8th Cir. 1932)
- San Antonio Hardware Co. v. Sanger (Tex. App. 1912)
- Hanover Nat. Bank of New York v. First Nat. Bank of Burlingame (8th Cir. 1901)
- PAN AM. BANK OF TAMPA v. Sullivan (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Etc., and v. Santino D. Meo, And (9th Cir. 1974)
- Corbett v. Devon Bank (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)
- Union Bank & Trust v. Pay (S.D. 1971)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States (District Court, E.D. Washington 1942)
- Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. McCormick (7th Cir. 1939)
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Central Republic Trust Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1936)
- Gallin v. National City Bank (New York Supreme Court 1934)
- Graham v. Young Et Ux (Superior Court of Delaware 1933)
- City Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Shreveport Brick Co. (La. 1931)
- Rust v. MacLaren (District Court, D. Kansas 1928)
- McCandless v. Haskins (District Court, D. South Dakota 1927)
- Jackman v. Continental Nat. Bank (8th Cir. 1926)
- Barron v. McKinnon (1st Cir. 1912)
- Mechanics & Farmers Savings Bank, FSB v. Delco Development Co. (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
- First National Bank v. Hemrich (Wash. 1936)
- Organ v. Winnemucca State Bank & Trust Co. (Nev. 1933)
- Cortez Oil Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1930)
- Providence Engineering Corp. v. Downey Shipbuilding Corp. (2d Cir. 1923)
- First Nat. Bank of Lake Charles v. Lanz (5th Cir. 1913)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
. Section 5201 of the Revised Statutes declares that “ no association shall make any loan or discount on the security of the shares of its own capital stock, nor be the purchaser or holder of any such shares, unless such security or purchase shall be necessary to prevent loss upon a debt previously contracted in good faith; and stock so purchased or acquired shall, within six months from the time of its purchase, be sold or disposed of at public or private sale; or, in default thereof, a receiver may be appointed to close up the business of the association.”
While this section in terms prohibits a banking association from making a loan upon the security of shares of its own stock, it imposes no penalty, either upon the bank or borrower, if a- *678 loan upon sucb security be made. If, therefore, the prohibition can be urged against the' validity of the transaction by any one except the government, it can only be done before the contract is executed, while the security is stilj subsisting in the hands of the bank. It can then, if at all, be invoked to restrain or defeat the enforcement of the security' When the contract has been executed, the security sold, and the proceeds' applied to the payment of the debt, the courts will not interfere with the ■matter. Both bank and borrower-are..in such case equally the subjects of legal censure, and they will be left by the cburts where they have placed themselves.'
There is another view of this case’.. The deceased authorized the bank, in a certain .contingency, to'sell hig. shares. Supposing it was unlawful for the bank to take those shares us. security for a loan,- it was not unlawful to ahthpiize the bafik to sell them when the contingency occurred. The shares being sold pursuant to the authority, the proceeds would be in the bank as his property. The administrators; indeed, affirm the .validity of that sale by suing for the proceeds. As against the deceased, however, the money loaned was an offset to the proceeds. In either view the administrators cannot recover.
The judgment of the court, therefore, must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial 3 and it is
So ordered'.^
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.