View Single Post
  #1  
Old 06-23-2004, 01:21 PM
suijuris's Avatar
suijuris suijuris is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,511
Cites - Case Law Prohibitions on Banking

12 USC, Section 24, Paragraph "Seventh."



I am aware that the United States Code Title 12, Section 24, Paragraph 7 confers upon a bank, the power to lend its money, not its credit. In First National Bank of Tallapoosa v Monroe, 135 Geo. 614; 69 S.E. 1123 (1911), the court, after citing the statute heretofore quoted, said:



"[T]he provisions referred to, do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is such power incidental of the business of banking. A bank can lend its money, but not its credit."



In Howard & Foster Co. v Citizens National Bank of Union, 133 S.C. 202; 130 SE 758, (1927) it was said:



"It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law, being limited in its power and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debt of another. All such contracts being entered into by its officers are ultra vires and not binding upon the parties nor the corporation. See also Merchants Bank of Valdosta v Baird, 160 F 642; 17 Lns 526 (1876).



"A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note." See Anheuser Busch Brewing Co. v Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 NW 558 (1890).



In short, if there is no full disclosure and no consideration, there is no contract.



See the related 12 USC Section 24, sub-paragraph the "Seventh."

__________________
When a statute, code, or court holding changes tomorrow, does reality change? Does truth change? Does right and wrong change?
If so, there are no absolutes, and the only logical conclusion is that reality, truth, and right and wrong are determined arbitrarily on a daily basis by those with the most power, guns, and money, and the rest of us can choose to run, fight, or be their slaves.
Reply With Quote