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

Traders' Bank v. Campbell

• 1871 • 81 U.S. 87 • Chase Court
Traders' Bank v. Campbell was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the Traders' Bank of Washington, D.C. and William Campbell, a former employee of the bank. Campbell had been employed by the bank as a cashier and had been given a bond by the bank as security for his faithful performance of his duties. When Campbell left the bank, he refused to return the bond, claiming that he was entitled to keep it as compensation for his services. The...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 Chase Court
Term: 1871
81 U.S. 87
20 L. Ed. 832
1871 U.S. LEXIS 978
Argued: Mar 01, 1872

Traders' Bank v. Campbell

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Traders' Bank v. Campbell was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the Traders' Bank of Washington, D.C. and William Campbell, a former employee of the bank. Campbell had been employed by the bank as a cashier and had been given a bond by the bank as security for his faithful performance of his duties. When Campbell left the bank, he refused to return the bond, claiming that he was entitled to keep it as compensation for his services. The bank sued Campbell for the return of the bond, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the bond was not compensation for Campbell's services, but rather a security for the faithful performance of his duties. The Court held that the bond was not a contract of employment, but rather a contract of indemnity, and that the bank was entitled to the return of the bond. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to damages for the breach of the contract, and that Campbell was liable for the return of the bond and the damages.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Traders' Bank v. Campbell, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could collect on an unpaid note that had been endorsed by two individuals who were not parties to the original contract. The majority opinion held that the endorsement of such notes did not create any legal obligation between those endorsers and the bank, thus allowing for collection against them. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that when one endorses a note they are assuming responsibility for its payment and should be liable if it is not paid as agreed upon. He further stated that this liability should extend even to those who are not party to the original agreement because their signature serves as evidence of their intent to assume financial responsibility for said debt. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that banks have a right to seek recovery from non-parties when they endorse notes without being aware of any potential defenses or claims related thereto

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: Apr 08, 1872
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