Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Bacon v. International Bank Of Chicago

1880 • 131 U.S. ccxvi • Waite Court
Bacon v. International Bank of Chicago was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the International Bank of Chicago and the Bacon family over a loan that the bank had made to the family. The Bacon family had borrowed money from the bank to purchase a farm, but had failed to make the payments on the loan. The bank then sued the family for the unpaid debt. The Bacon family argued that the loan was usurious and that the bank had charged them...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1880
Docket: 237
131 U.S. ccxvi
26 L. Ed. 439
1881 U.S. LEXIS 1483
Argued: Mar 02, 1881

Bacon v. International Bank Of Chicago

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Bacon v. International Bank of Chicago was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the International Bank of Chicago and the Bacon family over a loan that the bank had made to the family. The Bacon family had borrowed money from the bank to purchase a farm, but had failed to make the payments on the loan. The bank then sued the family for the unpaid debt. The Bacon family argued that the loan was usurious and that the bank had charged them an excessive rate of interest. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the loan was not usurious and that the bank had the right to collect the unpaid debt. The Court also held that the bank had not acted in bad faith in making the loan and that the Bacon family was liable for the unpaid debt. The decision in Bacon v. International Bank of Chicago established that banks have the right to collect unpaid debts and that borrowers are liable for the debts they incur. The case also established that banks are not required to act in good faith when making loans and that borrowers are responsible for ensuring that the terms of the loan are fair.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Bacon v. International Bank of Chicago, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds on behalf of its customers when those funds were stolen by an employee. The majority opinion found that the bank had no liability in this case as it had taken reasonable steps to protect against theft and fraud. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that banks should not be absolved from responsibility simply because they took precautions against theft or fraud; rather, he argued that if a customer entrusts money to a bank for safekeeping and then does not receive it due to negligence or dishonesty on the part of an employee, then the bank is responsible for making good on their promise regardless of any security measures they may have taken. He concluded his dissent by stating that "the law should hold them [banks] strictly accountable."

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms