Thomas v. Taylor,
224 U.S. 73 (1912)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Thomas v. Taylor, 224 U.S. 73 (1912)

Thomas v. Taylor

No. 171

Argued February 28, 1912

Decided March 18, 1912

224 U.S. 73


How an action brought in the state court shall be denominated is for the state court to determine.

Although the common law action of deceit does not lie against directors of a national bank for making a false statement, and the measure of their responsibility is laid down in the National Banking Act, Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 U. S. 158, an action may be maintained in the state court regardless of the form of pleading if the pleading itself satisfies the rule of responsibility declared by that act.

There is, in effect, an intentional violation of a statute when one deliberately refuses to examine that which it is his duty to examine.

The fact that a statement of the condition of a national bank is not made voluntarily, but under order of the Comptroller of the Currency, does not relieve the directors from liability for false statements knowingly made therein.

Notice from the Comptroller of the Currency to directors of a national bank to collect or charge off certain assets is a warning that those assets are doubtful, and to disregard such a notice and represent the assets in a statement to be good is a violation of the law and renders the directors making the statement liable for damages to one deceived thereby.

The objection that an action for deceit against directors of a national

Page 224 U. S. 74

hank was not declared in the trial court to be based on the federal statute, and therefore defendants did not introduce evidence applicable to such a suit but which could be omitted in a common law action, should be raised in the lower courts; such an objection is without merit where it appears that the issues actually raised were broad enough to allow and require the introduction of such evidence. A judgment cannot be reversed on the mere suggestion that, upon some other theory than that on which the case was tried, evidence might have been introduced which might have changed the result.

195 N.Y. 590 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the liability of directors of a national bank for damages caused by a false statement of the condition of the bank, are stated in the opinion.

Page 224 U. S. 77

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.