295 100 288 Johnson v. Lafin, Thomp. N. B. Cas. 331 Jones v. Barkley, Doug. 696. 358 Jones v. Broadhurst, 67 E. C. L. R. 173.. 247 Kelsey v. Nat. Bank of Crawford Co., McIver v. Robinson, 53 Ala. 456 McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 McLean, 597 M. & C. C. of Balt. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 6 Gill, 288 PAGE. 29, 33 McNutt v. Bland, 2 How. 9.. PAGE. 448 240 107 254 Mechanics' Bank v. Hazard, 13 Johns. 247 Y. 26. Baxt. 553.. 140 255 Marine Bank, 3 State Bank, 10 287 67, 100, 286 Godfrey, 23 Ill. Kilbourn v. Woodworth, 5 Johns. 37... 316 579 225 16 29 107 Middleton Bank v. Magill, 5 Conn. 70.. 33 40 34 Kortright v. Bank, 20 Wend. 91. Kyle v. Comm'rs of Fayetteville, 75 N. C. 445........ 55 344 Lackawanna I. and C. Co. v. Luzerne County, 6 Wright, 424.. Laforge v. Jayne, 9 Barr, 410 206 Lagrange v. Telegraph Co., 25 La. Ann. 383.. 52 Missouri River Tel. Co. v First National Bank of Sioux City, 74 III. 217... Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. 46, 70. ..54, 286 235, 236 Leach v. Hale, 31 Iowa, 69; s. C., 7 Am. Rep. 112 299 .70, 71 Leasure v. Hillegas, 7 S. & G. 313 ...16, 431 Lehigh C. & U. Co. v. Northampton Co., 8 W & S. 334... 416 Little v. O'Brien, 9 Mass. 423 55, 322 Lowry v. Inman, 46 N. Y. 125.. .114, 119 Lucas v. Gov. Nat. Bank, 78 Penn. St. 228; s. C., 21 Am. Rep. 17..307, 360, 371, 386 McClaren v. Franciscus, 43 Mo. 467. 29, McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.......61, 254, 278, 394, 417, 269 308 51 Montgomery County Bank v. Albany City Bank, 7 N. Y. 459.. 299 Mott v. U. S. Trust Co., 19 Barb. 568 ... 16 Nathan v. Whitlock, 9 Paige, 152.... 29, 32 National Exchange Bank of Columbus v. Munroe, 2 Bond, 170.. 308 National Bank v. Colby, 21 Wall. 613... 133 218, 276 National Bank v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353 .....77, 251, 296, 345 423, 448 National Bank v. Matthews, 8 Otto, 621. 284 32 235 New Haven v. City Bank, 31 Conn. 100, 106, 108 255, 257, 260, 417, 419 Niagara County Bank v. Baker, 15 Ohio St. 56, 85. 240, 244 Nichols v. Bellows, 22 Vt. 581. 140 Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg. 490.... Union Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Matthews, 28 U. S. 621, 658.. 223, 237, 425 United States v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133 259 United States v. Babbit, 1 Black, 61... 69 United States v. Fisher, 2 Cr. 358. 130 United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385.. 165 United States v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4.. 871 United States v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 33. 100 United States Trust Co. v. Harris, 2 Bosw. 76. 256 166 276 Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45. 159 PAGE. White v. Franklin Bank, 22 Pick. 181. 67 White v. Westport Manufacturing Co., 50 Vt. 389; s C., 28 Am. Rep. 508... 68, 69 Wild, In re, 11 Blatchf. 243.... Wiley v. First National Bank of Brat- tleboro, 47 Vt. 546; s. c., 19 Am. Rep. Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 662. Williams' Case, L. R. Eq. 224. Williams v. Hedley, 8 East, 377. Weston v. City of Charleston, 2 Peters, 416 ..61, 444 West St. Louis Savings Bank v. Par- 334 Wheelock v. Kost, 77 Ill. 296. 27, 146 Wheelock v. Lee, 64 N. Y. 242, 247. 308, 358 White v. Commonwealth, 4 Binn. 418.. 369 .358, 359 Wilson v. McIntosh, 1 Stark. N. P. 237. 330 Witte v. Derby F. Co., 2 Conn. 252. 289 Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 362.. Woods v. People's National Bank of CASES DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. HAYWARD V. ELIOT NATIonal Bank. (96 U. S. 611.) Sale by National bank to directors of corporate stock held as collateral for loans, when valid. H. being indebted to a National bank for a considerable sum, for which the bank held certain corporate stock as collateral security, in writing authorized the president and directors of the bank to sell at their discretion all the stock and apply the proceeds of the sale upon his indebtedness. Thereafter, after giving H. ample notice of an intention to sell, the stock was sold and transferred to three of the directors of the bank, at a price above the market value, and the amount received from the sale applied upon the indebtedness of H. H. received an itemized statement of the proceeds of the sale and of its application upon his indebtedness, to all of which he made no objection. Five years thereafter, H. commenced an action against the bank for the purpose of obtaining a decree redeeming the stock, and for an accounting. Held, that the action could not be maintained: first, because by his silence he was estopped; and second, because of delay in bringing suit. |