Osborn v. Bank of the United States

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), was a case set in the Banking Crisis of 1819, when many banks, including the Second Bank of the United States, demanded repayment for loans that they had issued on credit that they did not have. This led to an economic downturn and a shortage of money. In 1819, Ohio passed a law that put a tax on the Bank of the United States on the theory that taxing a bank would allow the state government to receive and distribute the scarce money.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States
Argued March 10, 1824
Decided March 19, 1824
Full case nameRalph Osborn and others, Appellants v. The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States, Respondents
Citations22 U.S. 738 (more)
9 Wheat. 738; 6 L. Ed. 204; 1824 U.S. LEXIS 409
Case history
PriorAppeal from the Circuit Court of Ohio
Holding
Eleventh Amendment is inapplicable in suits in which a state is not a party of record, even when a party is acting as a state official[1]
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington · William Johnson
Thomas Todd · Gabriel Duvall
Joseph Story · Smith Thompson
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall, joined by Washington, Todd, Duvall, Story, Thompson
DissentJohnson
Laws applied
Eleventh Amendment

On September 17, 1819, Ohio Auditor Ralph Osborn was given permission to seize $100,000 from a branch of the Bank of the United States. However, his agents mistakenly took $120,000 although the extra $20,000 was promptly returned. The bank chose to sue Osborn for the return of the additional $100,000, and a federal court ruled that Osborn violated a court order, prohibiting the taxing of the bank.

Osborn argued that he had never been properly served with the order but still had to return the money. A problem arose when Osborn could pay back only $98,000, as the other $2,000 had been used to pay the salary of Osborn's tax agents.

In 1824, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bank of the United States, ordering the return of the disputed $2,000.

See also

Notes
  1. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., et al., Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System (Foundation Press, Fifth Edition, 2003), Pg 992.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.