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

Schmidt v. Bank Of Commerce

• 1913 • 234 U.S. 64 • White Court
In the case of Schmidt v. Bank of Commerce in 1913, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy proceedings and property rights. The plaintiff, Schmidt, had filed for bankruptcy and claimed that certain properties were exempt from being used to pay off his debts because they were held as tenancy by the entirety (a form of ownership where both spouses have an equal undivided interest in a property). However, one of his creditors - Bank of Commerce - argued that these properties...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 White Court
Term: 1913
Docket: 281
234 U.S. 64
34 S. Ct. 730
58 L. Ed. 1214
1914 U.S. LEXIS 1186
Argued: Mar 19, 1914

Schmidt v. Bank Of Commerce

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Schmidt v. Bank of Commerce in 1913, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy proceedings and property rights. The plaintiff, Schmidt, had filed for bankruptcy and claimed that certain properties were exempt from being used to pay off his debts because they were held as tenancy by the entirety (a form of ownership where both spouses have an equal undivided interest in a property). However, one of his creditors - Bank of Commerce - argued that these properties should be included in the bankrupt estate since they were acquired after he incurred debt to them. The court ruled against Schmidt's claim stating that under federal law at that time, only those properties which are exempted by state laws can be excluded from a bankrupt estate. Since Missouri’s state law did not recognize tenancy by entirety as an exemption during insolvency or bankruptcy cases when it comes to paying off creditors' claims; hence such assets could not be protected from being used towards settling outstanding debts. This ruling upheld creditor's rights over debtor's attempt to protect their assets through specific forms of ownership.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Schmidt v. Bank of Commerce, Justice Holmes argued that the bank should not be held liable for honoring a check presented by an individual who had previously been authorized to handle financial transactions on behalf of another person. He reasoned that it was unreasonable to expect banks to constantly monitor changes in their customers' personal or business relationships and adjust their practices accordingly. Instead, he suggested that it was more practical and fairer for individuals involved in such relationships to notify banks directly when any change occurs affecting banking transactions. Therefore, according to his view, unless there is clear evidence suggesting fraudulent intent or gross negligence on part of the bank, they should not bear responsibility if they were unaware of any changes in authorization status at the time a transaction took place.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(1)
Decided: May 25, 1914
PDF viewer is not available.
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