Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
WHITNEY v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BRATTLEBORO, 1880 — 154 U.S. 664 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
WHITNEY v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BRATTLEBORO
154 U.S. 66426 L. Ed. 212·Supreme Court of the United States·1880
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
WHITNEY v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BRATTLEBORO.
ERJtOR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT.
No. 125.
Argued December 8, 1880.
Decided December 20, 1880.
National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699, followed.
Mr. Charles N. Davenport for plaintiff in error.
Mr. E. J. Phelps for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is clearly settled by that of National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699. The identical question there decided is presented by the record, and we have no doubt it was the only question considered by the Supreme Court of the State. We certainly cannot say, from anything that appears in the bill of exceptions, that there might not have been enough evidence of' negligence oh the trial in the lower court to make it necessary to send the case to the jury. There is nothing whatever in the record to indicate that the positive instruction to the jury to bring in a vérdict for the defendant below was based on anything else than a ruling that, as a matter of law, a national bank was not liable for the loss of special deposits.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to reverse the judgment'of the county court,, and award a venire de novo. _ Reversed.