WEST TENNESSEE BANK
v.
CITIZENS' BANK
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.
West Tennessee Bank sued Citizens' Bank in Louisiana to recover approximately $93,380.97 in deposits and collections made in Confederate treasury notes, with the trial court initially ruling in the plaintiff's favor. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the state's 1868 Constitution and established jurisprudence, the courts could not entertain actions based on transactions involving Confederate currency, and the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the constitutional provision merely codified pre-existing state law and therefore did not present a federal question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr., Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error brought suit against the defendant in error, in the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, to recover the sum of $93,380.97, for moneys deposited by the plaintiff' with the defendant, and moneys collected by the latter for the former. All the so-called moneys received by the defendant were the notes of the rebel government. The District Court, on the 27th of March, 1867, gave judgment for the plaintiff. The case was thereupon taken by appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. That court, on the 14th of December, 1869, reversed the judgment of the court below and dismissed the case. In the opinion delivered it was said: “Under the constitution of 1868 the courts of this State cannot entertain an action based upon transactions in Confederate treasury notes. We think the evidence discloses that this case is founded upon dealings in unlawful currency, and the court has often refused to lend its aid to transactions reprobated by law.” The constitution of 1868 was not in existence when the case was decided by the District Court.
The Supreme Court founded its judgment alike upon the constitutional provision and prior adjudications. Those adjudications are numerous and conclusive upon the subject.* The constitution only declared a settled pre-existing rule of jurisprudence in that State. The result in this case would have been necessarily the same if the constitution had not contained the provision in question. This brings the case within the authority of Bethell v. Demaret.† Upon such a state of facts this court cannot take jurisdiction under the section of the Judiciary Act upon which the writ of error is founded. The motion must, therefore, be sustained, and the case
Dismissed.
*
Hunley et al. v. Scott, 19 Louisiana Annual, 161; King v. Huston, Hubbell & Co., Ib. 288; McCracken v. Poole, Ib. 359; Norton v. Dawson et al., Ib. 464.
†
10 Wallace, 537.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. La. Sugar Ref. Co., 125 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1888)…currency, which constituted the consideration, was illegal by the general law of the State, this court dismissed the writ of error, because no statute of the State was drawn in question. And in Bank of West Tennessee v. Citizens' Bank of Louisiana, 13 Wall. 432; S. C. 14 Wall. 9; where the Supreme Court of Louisiana, affirming a judgment rendered by an inferior court of the State before the adoption of article 127 of the State Constitution of 1868, by which “ all agreements, the consideration of which was…
-
Chicago and Alton Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U.S. 615 (U.S. 1877)…we have no power to bring it under review. The decision would have been the same upon' the case as made, whether the Constitution had contained the provision relied on or not. Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; West Tennessee Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 13 Wall. 432; Delmas v. Insurance Co., 14 Wall. 661, in which it was expressly held that this court cannot review the decision of a state court holding a contract valid or void when “ made upon the general principles by which courts determine whether a considera…
-
Kreiger v. Shelby R.R. Co. & Others, 125 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1888)…tes, and upon grounds which would have been equally controlling if the later acts had. not been passed. The necessary conclusion is that this court has no jurisdiction to review those judgments. Bank of West Tennessee v. Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, 13 Wall. 432; S. C. 14 Wall. 9; Palmer v. Marston, 14 Wall. 10; Kennebec Railroad v, Portland Railroad, 14 Wall. 23; Stevenson v. Williams, 19 Wall. 572; New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., ante, 18. Writs of error dismissed for want of juri…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence