Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Third Nat Bank vs. Miners' Nat Bank

Third Nat Bank vs Miners' Nat Bank

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1880
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/83948

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
102 U.S. 663
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Third Nat Bank

Respondent

Miners' Nat Bank

Excerpt

third nat bank v. miners' nat bank - 102 u.s. 663 (1880) u.s. supreme court third nat bank v. miners' nat bank, 102 u.s. 663 (1880) 102 u.s. 663 102 u.s. 663 third national bank v. national bank. october term, 1880 mr. justice miller delivered the opinion of the court. the action in the present case is brought against the same defendant on indorsements of drafts precisely similar to the indorsements in white v. national bank, though by a different plaintiff. there is in that case the same money count joined with special counts on the drafts, and the same evidence that the money came to the use of the defendant. in this case, however, the parties waived a jury, and the court found no facts, but rendered a general finding for the defendant. we have had some difficulty, therefore, in disturbing the judgment, as there is no charge to the jury, and no instructions asked and refused. a bill of exceptions, however, embodies the evidence, and shows that the court refused to receive the drafts in evidence, although the accompanying evidence of the receipt of the money by defendant, and its payment by plaintiff, was the same as in the other case. to this ruling there was an exception. we are of opinion that the drafts, the peculiar indorsement, and the payment of the money by the plaintiff, and its receipt and use by the defendant, were each and all parts of a transaction admissible as evidence of money paid by plaintiff to the use of defendant, to be repaid on request, and that the court erred in rejecting any part of it. the judgment will therefore the reversed for that error, and the case remanded with directions to grant a new trial. so ordered.

Full Judgment

THIRD NAT BANK v. MINERS' NAT BANK - 102 U.S. 663 (1880)
U.S. Supreme Court THIRD NAT BANK v. MINERS' NAT BANK, 102 U.S. 663 (1880)

102 U.S. 663 102 U.S. 663

THIRD NATIONAL BANK
v.
NATIONAL BANK.

October Term, 1880

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

The action in the present case is brought against the same defendant on indorsements of drafts precisely similar to the indorsements in White v. National Bank, though by a different plaintiff. There is in that case the same money count joined with special counts on the drafts, and the same evidence that the money came to the use of the defendant.

In this case, however, the parties waived a jury, and the court found no facts, but rendered a general finding for the defendant. We have had some difficulty, therefore, in disturbing the judgment, as there is no charge to the jury, and no instructions asked and refused.

A bill of exceptions, however, embodies the evidence, and shows that the court refused to receive the drafts in evidence, although the accompanying evidence of the receipt of the money by defendant, and its payment by plaintiff, was the same as in the other case. To this ruling there was an exception.

We are of opinion that the drafts, the peculiar indorsement, and the payment of the money by the plaintiff, and its receipt and use by the defendant, were each and all parts of a transaction admissible as evidence of money paid by plaintiff to the use of defendant, to be repaid on request, and that the court erred in rejecting any part of it.

The judgment will therefore the reversed for that error, and the case remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

So ordered.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial