Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Public Officers - When Do They Owe A Duty To A Particular Individual Rather Than A Class?
Public Officers - When Do They Owe A Duty To A Particular Individual Rather Than A Class?
Michigan Law Review
The plaintiff, a stockholder in the Bank of the United States, sued the defendant, superintendent of banks for New York State, for losses sustained when the bank failed as a result of the defendant's failure to perform certain acts required by statute. Held, the defendant, being charged by statute with a duty to all the people of the state, owed no duty to the stockholders as individuals, and was not liable to the plaintiff. Walker v. Broderick, 252 N. Y. S. 559 (1931).
Bills And Notes - Estoppel As Against Bona Fide Purchaser Of Non-Negotiable Chose
Bills And Notes - Estoppel As Against Bona Fide Purchaser Of Non-Negotiable Chose
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiffs bought some interim certificates (at that time non-negotiable in New York), and delivery was made to them. Because of inability to make payment that day, they asked the vendor to send a runner for the certificates, and when a person appeared asking for the amount due the vendor, plaintiffs' cashier gave him the certificates. Shortly thereafter the proper runner arrived, and plaintiff's at once gave notice of the theft in newspapers and otherwise. Some of the stolen certificates were pledged with defendant who acted in good faith in taking them. The defense to this suit for recovery of the …
Bills And Notes - Negotiation - Implied Warranties
Bills And Notes - Negotiation - Implied Warranties
Michigan Law Review
In a suit by the payee against the maker of a note, the defense was a failure of the consideration, i.e., several assigned drafts had been paid at the time of the assignment. It did not appear whether these unendorsed drafts were order or bearer instruments. Held, under the Negotiable Instruments Law this is not a failure of consideration because the assignor warrants only facts within his knowledge, and evidence of knowledge of these facts by the assignee is admissible to rebut the implied warranty. Queensboro Nat. Bank. v. Kelly, 48 F.(2d)574 (1931).