West St. Louis Savings Bank v. Shawnee County Bank’s Empirical Analysis
95 U.S. 557 · 1877
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 5 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1939 · most notably Auten v. United States National Bank (1899), St. Charles Savings Bank v. Edwards (1912)
32 federal appellate · 5 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 24 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘Ordinarily, the cashier, being- the ostensible executive officer of a bank, is presumed to have, in the absence of positive restrictions, all the powers necessary for such an officer in the transaction of the legitimate business of banking. Thus, he is generally understood to have authority to indorse the commercial paper of his bank, and bind the bank by tbe indorsement. So, ioo, in tbe absence of restrictions, if he has procured bona fide rediscount of tbe paper of tbe bank, his acts will be binding, because of his implied power to transact such business; but certainly he is not presumed to have power, by reason of his official position, to bind his bank as an accommodation in-dorser of his own promissory note. Such a transaction would not be within the scope of his general powers; and one who accepts an indorsement of that character, if a contest arises, must prove actual authority before ho can recover. There are no presumptions in favor of such a delegation of power. The very form of the paper itself carried notice to a purchaser of a possible want of power to make tlie indorsement, and is sufficient to put him on his guard. If he fails to avail himself of the notice, and obtain tbe information which is thus suggested to him, it is his own fault, amd, as against an innocent party, he must bear the loss.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The testimony in this case satisfies us beyond all doubt that the liability of the Shawnee County Bank, if any liability exists, is that of an accommodation indorser or surety for Parmalee, its Cashier, and that this was known to the St. Louis Bank when it made the discount. t\i “Such a transaction would not he within the scope of his general powers; and one who accepts an indorsement of that character, if a contest arises, must prove actual authority before he can recover. There are no presumptions in favor of such a delegation of power. The very form of the paper itself carries notice to a purchaser, of a possible want of power to make the indorsement, and is sufficient to put him on his guard. If he fails to avail himself of the notice, and obtain the information which is thus suggested to him, it is his own fault, and as against an innocent party he must bear the loss.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.