Hotchkiss v. National City Bank

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Contracts

ContractsStipulationsDamagesSecuritiesstipulationsecuritiesdepreciationequity

Facts

The bank received securities on January 19, 1910, and the trustee later brought an equity suit in May 1910 to set the transfer aside and recover the securities. Before that suit was filed, the parties stipulated that the bank could sell the securities at the best obtainable price whenever its officers thought best, without prejudice to either side's rights, and that any proceeds would stand in place of the securities and measure the bank's liability if the transfer were adjudged preferential. In the original litigation, the courts held that the trustee was entitled only to return of the securities and any dividends or interest collected, not to the amount of their decline in market value. The present dispute concerns whether the plaintiff can recover depreciation that occurred after the District Court's original decision but before the securities were finally delivered.

Issue

When parties stipulate that a bank holding disputed securities may sell them in its discretion and that any proceeds will stand in place of the securities pending adjudication, may the plaintiff recover the securities' market depreciation occurring between the District Court's decision and final delivery? More specifically, did the stipulation contemplate final adjudication so as to bar such depreciation damages during that interim period?

Rule

Where parties stipulate that disputed securities may be held or sold by the bank in its discretion, that proceeds shall stand in lieu of the securities, and that the bank's liability will be measured if the transfer is adjudicated preferential, the plaintiff is limited to return of the securities or the proceeds and cannot recover market depreciation while the bank properly holds them pending final adjudication.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Chicago, Meridian Harbor Bank received disputed shares from a debtor shortly before insolvency. Before the trustee sued, the bank and trustee signed a stipulation allowing the bank to sell the shares at the best obtainable price whenever its officers thought best, providing that any proceeds would stand in place of the shares and preserve both sides' rights; the bank chose not to sell, and the shares fell sharply in value during the appeal.

If a final judgment later requires the bank to return the shares, may the trustee also recover the amount of the interim market decline?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when the parties stipulate that disputed securities may be held or sold in the holder's discretion and that proceeds will stand in lieu of the securities, the claimant is limited to return of the securities or the proceeds and may not recover market depreciation during the authorized holding period. The opinion reads the stipulation as covering the period until final adjudication, so the bank's choice not to sell does not create liability for interim decline.