BANK OF WEST TENNESSEE
v.
CITIZENS' BANK OF LOUISIANA
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.
Bank of West Tennessee sought to recover approximately $93,880 from Citizens' Bank of Louisiana for moneys deposited and collected, but all funds in dispute consisted of Confederate treasury notes. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for the plaintiff and dismissed the case, relying on both the state's 1868 Constitution and prior state judicial decisions that prohibited courts from enforcing transactions involving unlawful Confederate currency. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because Louisiana's established jurisprudence would have reached the same result regardless of the constitutional provision, the case did not present a federal question suitable for review under the Judiciary Act.
© 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 the suit against the defendant in error in the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, to recover the sum of $93,880, 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 Bethel 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.
Case dismissed.
*
Hunley et al. v. Scott, 19 Lou. Ann. 161; King v. Huston, Hubbel & Co., Ib. 288; McCracken v. Pool, 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)…stituted 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 Confederate money,…
-
Kreiger v. Shelby R.R. Co. & Others, 125 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1888)…s 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 jurisdiction.…
-
Winona & ST. Peter R.R. Co. v. Plainview, 143 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1892)…nstitution of the State, which were in force at the time of .the passage of the act of 1811; and it did not hold them invalid by reason of the act of 1881. Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; West Tenn. Bank v. Citizens' Bank of La., 13 Wall. 432, and 14 Wall. 9; Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 661, 666; Tarver v. Keach, 15 Wall. 61; Stevenson v. Williams, 19 Wall. 572; N. O. Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18, 35. Moreover, the liability of the Plainview company to the towns, which…