The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
{01
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
X-3621
January 13, 1923.
Federal Reserve Board,
Washington, D. c.
Gentlemen:
Attantion Mr. Wal tar Wyatt. Counsel
I have your letter of January 10 anclosin~ copy of X
letters 3613. ! noto that in thd latter aduras~ad to you by
Mr. Wallace of ~ate December 29, Mr. Wallace axpres6es the opinion
that the Dallas Court erred in tha case which I called to your
attention, because 11 tha ri~t of the oti 6 inal depositor to sue a
remota a 6 ent should be determined not by the law of the state in
which the remota agent is located, but by the law of the state in
which the original deposit was made."
I also observe from your
letter of January 9 addressed to Mr. i7allac3 that you ara inclined
to agree with this view.
T.his very point was raised by the opposing Counsel of
the Dallas case and we ar 6 ued th~ matter at som3 lensth. I think
the propo~ition made by Mr. Wallace i~ 6ound, providin6 the law of
the State in which the original deposit was rnad.d is a positiva or
statutory law, unless, of course, this would be effected by the
terms of tb~ Federal Reserve Act~
If there is no statutory law,
and it is a question of ~enaral comrrlercial law, or tha common law;
that is, if tha Court is frea to apply aither th3 so-called Massachusetts rula or the so-called N~n York rulJ, then I am of the
opinion that each Court Nill hold that thJre is but one common law,
and that its interpretation of that comllion law is the correct interpretation.
In oth~r words, it is my understanding that Courts
will follo v the Courts of sister States where thosa Courts are interpreting tha positive of statutory laN of the sister State, but
when arrivin& at tha common law each Court wi~l ass~ that its
interpretation of th3 common law is tha correct interpretation, the
interpretation of Court~ of sister Stat2G to the contrary notwithstanding.
In this connection I call your attention to the
following list of authorities:
St. Nicholas Bank vs State National
13 L. R. A., 241.
Faulkner vs Bart, 82 N. Y-, 4l3·
E~~,
X-3621
- 2 Swift vs Tyson, 10 Law Ed., 865
Oats vs National Bank, 25 Law Ed., 580·
Third National Bank vs National Bank of
Commarca, 139 S. W., 665.
Liverpool St~amship Co. vs Phanix Insuranca
Company, 129 U. S., 397·
As I hav~ praviously advisJd you, wa hava a suit pcnd"int_. in tha District Court of tha Unitdd States at El Paso, in vmich
we have raised this qudstion, and I will advise you of the outcome
of thi~ case, and will also furnish you with any briefs that may
b~ fil~.
Vdry truly yours,
(Si~n~d)
E. B. Stroud, Jr.
Offica Counsal.
@FedFRASER