IN RE CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FORT WORTH, PETITIONER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court denied City National Bank of Fort Worth's petition for mandamus challenging a Circuit Court decree that imposed interest liability on the bank for retaining proceeds from cattle sales that belonged in part to Hunter & Co. The Court held that its prior mandate did not prohibit the Circuit Court from imposing interest liability based on the bank's use of Hunter & Co.'s funds, and therefore the lower court did not disobey the Supreme Court's prior directions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,
after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
Application is now made for mandamus, and this is the. proper remedy, if the mandate of this court has been disregarded, but if not, the application for leave to file should be denied.
We are of opinion that whether or not the proceeds of the cattle were received and retained by the bank under such circumstances as to render it liable to Hunter & Co. for interest on their pro rata share, was a matter which was necessarily so far left at large by our former decree that we cannot hold that the mandate was disregarded by the decree rendered thereunder by the Circuit Court.
The Dawson note was held in trust for Hunter & Co. and the bank, payment to be worked out from the cattle through the agency of McCulloch, and when the bank terminated Mc-Culloch’s agency, took possession of the herd, and received the proceeds of the cattle from Ellis, it received the pro rata share of Hunter & Co. in trust for them, as the litigation turned out, and nothing in the directions we gave prevented the Circuit Court from holding the bank to a liability to pay interest thereon if, in its judgment, it was justified in so doing by the facts disclosed on the hearing. Ellis was the agent of the bank and the money was kept and used by the bank, being carried on the books to the credit of the “ Dawson bond account,” subject to the determination of this suit. The language of the stipulation that, the amount collected was deposited by Ellis as a “ general deposit,” and used “ as other-general deposits,” “as other of its funds,” does not change the legal effect of the transaction so far as Hunter & Co. were concerned, who had nothing to do with the agreement of the bank to indemnify Dawson’s sureties on the replevin bond. The use of their part of the money under the circumstances may have induced the Circuit Court to arrive at the result complained of. We are not, however, called on to say whether the allowance of the interest was or was not correct, as the only question is whether that court disobeyed the mandate, which, we do not think it did.
As to the costs, we are also clear that the action of the Circuit Court was not precluded by the former decision.
Leave to file the petition must, therefore, be
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1895)
-
Ex parte in the Matter of Leaf Tobacco Bd. of Trade of the City of N.Y., 222 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1911)
-
Ex parte THE Union Steamboat Co., 178 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1900)…e also Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275; Ex parte Dubuque & Pacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69; Durant v. Essex Co., 101 U. S. 555; In re Washington & Georgetown R. R. Co., 140 U. S. 91; City Bank v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512; In re City National Bank, 153 U. S. 246; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247; In re Potts, 166 U. S. 263. It is equally well settled, however, that such writ, as a general rule, lies only where there is no other adequate remedy and that it cannot be availed of as a writ of error…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1893)
- In re Wash. & Georgetown R.R. Co., 140 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1891)
- Nat'l Bank of the Commonwealth v. Mechanics' Nat'l Bank, 94 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1876)
- Mass. Benefit Ass'n v. Miles, 137 U.S. 689 (U.S. 1891)
- City Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter, 152 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1894)
- Executors v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275 (U.S. 1835)
- Nat'l Bank v. Graham, 100 U.S. 699 (U.S. 1879)
- City Nat'l Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter, 129 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1889)