Cites - Case Law Prohibitions on Banking

[Ice]

logos,



Redemption processes end when judicial processes begin. The problem is that people are using the wrong process in the wrong place. Using redemption processes in court is akin to beating your head against a brick wall... you only hurt yourself.



Ice

[dashboy]

What is the code or case site that says the banks can not lend there assets? I got plenty for them being unable to lend credit. Is there a United States Code for this?

Questions about 3rd Party Debt Collectors....



1. After a bank has charged off a credit card, and then some lawyer sues you (over 6 months later), how can a person prove that this lawfirm bought the debt for pennies on the dollar?



2. Can a 3rd party debt collector/attorney sue a person for more than what they actually paid for the account? If not, where is the law that says they can't?



3. If I went to an arbitration company other than the 3 outlined in the cardmember agreement and the banks were silent and didn't object to this, is this arbitration award valid? I sent the banks a letter telling them that I was changing the cardmember agreement just like they do so often.



4. If the banks didn't challenge those arbitration awards within 90 days, then I'm being told that they can't challenge it later. Has anyone ever heard of this 90 day limit?

I am being sued by 2 banks, and with another I have an arbitration award against them, and they have one against me (MBNA). Mine was started 4 days BEFORE theirs. Also, they didn't object to mine, and I objected strongly to theirs.



I have fought off the 2 banks that are suing me so far, but they have made progress.



I filed motions to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, production of documents, indefinte statement, challenged their affadavits, etc.



Do you guys want me to post the details?



Thanks, Steve

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face="tahoma">Can someone please summarize and explain the purpose/process of shepardizing? I very much aspire to no longer be "the forum idiot"



Thanks!



-BT[/color]

[sadie]

svanos



I found this in Cornforth's book:

A note void in the hands of the payee, because obtained by him of the maker by fraud, is collectible in the hands of a subsequent bona fide holder who has taken it before maturity for value; but if such holder has paid on such transfer a less sum than the amount of the note, he can only recover the amount which he, or some prior holder through whom he derives title, has paid for it. HOLCOMB v. WYCKOFF. 1870 WL 5231 (N.J. Sup.).

[TheBlackTruth]

68. ---- Collateral for contract performance



The act of a national bank in accepting a deposit to be held by it as collateral security for the performance of a contract between the depositor and another is not illegal, and it would be estopped to set up the defense of ultra vires against one making such a contract with it relying thereon. Bushnell v. Chautauqua County Nat. Bank, Sup.1877, 10 Hun 378, affirmed in 74 N.Y. 290.



National bank is not authorized under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor's behalf. Carr v. Weiser State Bank of Weiser, Idaho 1937, 66 P.2d 1116, 57 Idaho 599.



Under this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authorized by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. Holmes v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App.1920, 222 S.W. 640, error refused.



A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. ****rill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.



A national bank may receive, before maturity, payment of debts owing to the bank, although such debts bear a high rate of interest, if the money is needed for the legitimate business of the bank. Keyser v. Hitz, D.C.Sup.1883, 13 D.C. 513, affirmed 8 S.Ct. 143, 123 U.S. 297, 31 L.Ed. 156.


77. Partnership agreements



A national bank is liable in a civil action for fraud perpetrated under the guise of a partnership agreement, though it had no power to make such an agreement. Pronger v. Old Nat. Bank, Wash.1899, 56 P. 391, 20 Wash. 618.



In a suit by national bank on a promissory note wherein defendants claimed partnership with the bank, such contract, if any, although performed, was not binding on the bank, it being ultra vires and the bank not having profited thereby. First Nat. Bank v. Stokes, Ark.1918, 203 S.W. 1026, 134 Ark. 368.



A national bank, having joined with other persons in a partnership to operate a mill, cannot be prevented from recovering moneys loaned to the firm, on the ground that it had no power to become a partner in a mill. Cameron v. First Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App.1896, 34 S.W. 178.



111. Generally



The discount of negotiable paper is the form according to which national banks are authorized by this section to make their loans, and the terms "loans" and "discounts" are synonymous. National Bank v. Johnson, U.S.N.Y.1881, 104 U.S. 271, 14 Otto 271, 26 L.Ed. 742.



The words "by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange," and so forth, are not to be read as limiting the mode of exercising "such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking," but as descriptive of the kind of "banking" which is authorized. First Nat. Bank v. National Exch. Bank, U.S.Md.1875, 92 U.S. 122, 2 Otto 122, 23 L.Ed. 679. See, also, Western Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, Ohio, 1894, 14 S.Ct. 572, 152 U.S. 346, 38 L.Ed. 470; Nebraska v. Orleans First Nat. Bank, C.C.Neb.1898, 88 F. 947; Shinkle v. First Nat. Bank of Ripley, 1872, 22 Ohio St. 516; Cleveland, Brown & Co. v. Shoeman, 1883, 40 Ohio St. 176.



National bank has no right to deal in negotiable paper except in manner provided by law, which is limited to discounting such paper, and it cannot trade negotiable paper held by it for other paper. National Bank of the Republic v. Price, Utah 1923, 234 P. 231, 65 Utah 57.



The purchase of a note from the payee, with the latter's indorsement, is a purchase by discounting in the usual course of business, and is not a purchase by barter and sale, as would be the case if the note was taken without indorsement, or by indorsement without recourse. Nicholson v. National Bank of Newcastle, Ky.1891, 17 S.W. 627, 13 Ky.L.Rptr. 478, 92 Ky. 251.



This section contemplates loans and discounts as understood in commercial law and according to the known usage and practice of banks. Greenville First Nat. Bank v. Sherburne, 1884, 14 Ill.App. 566. See, also, Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Sevier, C.C.Ark.1882, 27 Alb.L.J. 447, 14 F. 662.



The words, "by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange," do not limit the mode of exercising the "incidental powers" necessary to carry on the business of banking, so that under this section a national bank may carry on banking "by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange," etc., and may exercise "all such incidental powers as shall be necessary" for that purpose. Shinkle v. First Nat. Bank of Ripley, Ohio 1872, 22 Ohio St. 516.



In an action by a national bank to recover on a note held by it, it alleged in the petition that the holder of the note "sold, assigned, transferred, and discounted" the note to the plaintiff. Held, that the words "sold" and "discounted" were intended by the pleader to have the same meaning the word "sold" being used to convey the idea of a transfer by discount, according to the usages of business and the regular rates of discount, rather than a barter and sale. Van Leuven v. First Nat. Bank, 1873, 54 N.Y. 671.



112. Exchange



Exchange of negotiable paper by national banks, made in good faith and in regular course of business, is protected just as purchase would be, under this section. National Bank of the Republic v. Beckstead, Utah 1926, 250 P. 1033, 68 Utah 421.



Exchange of notes belonging to a national bank for other notes held by another bank is ultra vires. Stockmen's Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, Idaho 1923, 221 P. 150, 38 Idaho 395.



113. Purchase



The right to "discount and negotiate" includes the right to buy. Morris v. Third Nat. Bank, C.C.A.8 (Mo.) 1905, 142 F. 25, 73 C.C.A. 211, certiorari denied 26 S.Ct. 762, 201 U.S. 649, 50 L.Ed. 905. See, also, Danforth v. National State Bank, N.J.1891, 48 F. 271, 1 C.C.A. 62, 17 L.R.A. 622; Union Nat. Bank v. Rowan, 1885, 23 S.C. 339, 55 Am.Rep. 26; Atlas Nat. Bank v. Savery, 1879, 127 Mass. 75; National Pemberton Bank v. Porter, 1878, 125 Mass. 333, 28 Am.Rep. 235; Smith v. Exchange Bank, 1875, 26 Ohio St. 141; Rochester First Nat. Bank v. Harris, 1871, 108 Mass. 514.



This section confers no authority on national banks to acquire notes, drafts, etc., otherwise than by way of discount, for the term "negotiating" merely concerns disposal by a bank of the notes, etc., it may have acquired, and authorizes the transfer thereof. Danforth v. National State Bank, C.C.A.3 (N.J.) 1891, 48 F. 271, 1 C.C.A. 62.



National bank had power to purchase warrants issued by sewer district at their face value. State ex rel. Boatmen's Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Webster Groves General Sewer Dist. No. 1 of St. Louis County, Mo.1931, 37 S.W.2d 905, 327 Mo. 594.



A purchase by a national bank of notes of a construction company was not ultra vires, where it appeared that the notes were secured by stocks and bonds of a railroad company and that the construction company was formed by the first mortgage bondholders of the railroad company pursuant to a reorganization plan after the purchase by them of the railroad property on a foreclosure sale. National Bank of Commerce in St. Louis v. Francis, Mo.1922, 246 S.W. 326, 296 Mo. 169, certiorari denied 43 S.Ct. 362, 261 U.S. 618, 67 L.Ed. 829.



Purchase by a national bank of notes issued by a construction company organized by railroad first mortgage bondholders, acting under a reorganization agreement after foreclosure of the mortgage, held not ultra vires under this section, empowering a national bank to discount and negotiate promissory notes and other evidences of debt, and to loan money on personal security, such notes being "evidences of debt," although they may not have been, strictly speaking, promissory notes, as containing no absolute promise to repay by the maker, and limiting payment out of stocks and bonds pledged, which were "personal security," upon which the bank was authorized to loan money. Attleborough Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 1878, 125 Mass. 339.




Even assuming that national banks are not authorized under the law to go into the market and buy promissory notes from those who are selling them only as a commodity, and therefore that such purpose is ultra vires, yet such transaction being an ordinary contract, and not made penal nor expressly forbidden by law, the maker or indorser cannot defend on the ground that the bank obtained no title. National Pemberton Bank v. Porter, 1878, 125 Mass. 333, 28 Am.Rep. 235. See, also, Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 1893, 157 Mass. 548, 32 N.E. 909; Trenton First Nat. Bank v. Gillilan, 1880, 72 Mo. 77; Atlas Nat. Bank v. Savery, 1879, 128 Mass. 75.



It has been held that the right to discount and negotiate notes, etc., goes no further than to authorize the taking of them in return for a loan of money made on the strength of the promises contained in them, and does not contemplate a purchase in the market. Lazear v. National Union Bank, Md.1879, 52 Md. 78, 36 Am.Rep. 355. See, also, Rochester First Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 1877, 24 Minn. 140, 31 Am.Rep. 341.



A national bank cannot acquire title to a note by purchase. Ridgway v. National Bank of New Castle, 1890, 12 Ky.Law Rep. 216.

Originally Posted by Bird

scott:

<font size=1>"But I went bonkers yesterday...Wondering if it was a scam approach that I had convinced myself had merit. So my question regarding your cites:

Do you know of people who have succeeded with this? Real people. Real cases."[/color]


When attempting to succeed at anything, personal conviction is of paramount importance. Of course, no one can give you that. Then there is knowledge, and your understanding. Yes, there is a "scam" going on, but the very first step of taking actions based on it would be to understand which party is perpetuating it [the banks, or the people who discover the truth].



Here is another case that was won against the bank on a mortage.

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/...oney-case.html



I don't quite understand how you thought what you are doing was a great idea until just yesterday. This ordeal must have been going on for many months now in order to have a court date next week, correct?



Also, to better enable people to contribute ideas, you may want to describe the steps that you have taken thus far to bring people up to speed with your issue. (i.e., what actions you have taken thus far).

I'm afraid there's more to it.

284 Minn. 573, *; 170 N.W.2d 600;
1969 Minn. LEXIS 1103, **


Leo Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis and Another. Leo Zurn v. First National Bank of Minneapolis and Another

Nos. 42088, 42117

Supreme Court of Minnesota

284 Minn. 573; 170 N.W.2d 600; 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1103


September 5, 1969

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Prohibition in this court upon the relation of the Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis and the First National Bank of Minneapolis to compel Martin V. Mahoney, justice of the peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, to refrain from any further proceedings in actions brought by Leo Zurn against said relators.

DISPOSITION: Applications dismissed.

HEADNOTES: Courts -- acts by justice of peace in excess of jurisdiction -- effect.

COUNSEL: Faegre & Benson, Gordon G. Bus****er, Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West & Halladay, and Jan D. Stuurmans, for relators.

OPINIONBY: PER CURIAM

OPINION: [*573] Applications for a writ of prohibition in the above-entitled consolidated matters instituted before Martin V. Mahoney, justice of the peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota.

The death of Mr. Mahoney on August 22, 1969, makes these proceedings moot as to him.

However, to avoid the necessity of further proceedings to vacate and set aside any action taken herein by Mr. Mahoney prior to his death (see, 42 Am. Jur., Prohibition, § 47), we declare all proceedings in this matter before the justice of the peace a nullity upon the jurisdictional grounds set forth in In re Daly, [**2] 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W. (2d) 818. The applications for the writ of prohibition are dismissed.



285 Minn. 503, *; 171 N.W.2d 218;
1969 Minn. LEXIS 996, **


Jerome Daly v. Savage State Bank and Another

No. 42157

Supreme Court of Minnesota

285 Minn. 503; 171 N.W.2d 218; 1969 Minn. LEXIS 996


November 14, 1969

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Petition in this court for a writ of prohibition by Savage State Bank to compel Martin V. Mahoney, justice of the peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, to refrain from enforcing certain orders and from further proceedings in an action brought by one Jerome Daly against petitioner and Eugene T. Kearney, postmaster at Savage, Minnesota.

DISPOSITION: Application dismissed.

HEADNOTES: Courts -- justice of peace court -- demand for removal -- effect.

COUNSEL: Fredrikson, Byron & Colborn, Ltd., James L. Baillie, and Keith Libbey, for petitioner.

OPINIONBY: PER CURIAM

OPINION: [*503] Petition for a writ of prohibition in the above-entitled matter instituted before Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of the Peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota.

The death of Mr. Mahoney on August 22, 1969, makes these proceedings moot as to him.

However, to avoid the necessity of further proceedings to vacate and set aside any action taken herein by Mr. Mahoney or by any successor in office (see, 42 Am. Jur., Prohibition, § 47), we declare all proceedings in this matter in the justice court subsequent to relator's demand for removal of August 15, 1969, a nullity. Minn. St. 531.115 provides [**2] for removal as a matter of right from a justice of the peace court to a court presided over by a salaried judge, and it requires the justice of the peace to transmit the file of such action "forthwith." See, Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149, 114 N.W. (2d) 73.

The application for the writ of prohibition is dismissed.

[Freedomless]

PGirl, when posting post the most valuable information possible. You purposely post negative cases, when in fact there are wins. Do you haunt the patriot sites to hinder process? You and Neo are of no value to any of these sites. Go do something constructive.

[cigs645]

banks cannot lend THEIR credit, they can extend credit based on their reserves and funds on deposit. in short they lend out your credit. it's subtle but that is how they get around it. the banks borrow from the fed using you and I but the banks must pay the fed back.


Every Tuesday the fed sells US treasuries, considered by most investors the safest investments in the world because they are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. As far as I know the US has only one source of revenue, taxes. Again they are not lending out their credit but ours.

They said that in Jan the trade deficit was like almost $70Billion. most of the worlds economies are supported by their ability to get the US consumer to buy their goods. So China, Jappan, Germany etc.. feel they must buy those treasuiries in order to keep the same US goverment funded.

And under GW the debt stands at $8.3 Trillion. It's just a circle. A very fragile one. Last year about this time the bank of Japan cut back on it's purchases of US treasuries, interest rates went slighly up till the Bank of Japan jumped back in and the rates came back down

Originally Posted by suijuris

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."