Have these cases been overturned OR REPEALED BY A HIGHER COURT ?

[Prosay]

I'm not interested in any argument, being chastised etc. I am looking for some straight answers. So if anyone can offer some constructive input on this post, it will be appreciated.

Also, I am especially interested in any law or higher court ruling which may have rejected or overturned theses cases. If no such higher court ruling has been submitted, then why can't these 'case precedents not be used as "affirmative defenses". I am inquiring in good faith, and would appreciate a constructive response. ( see below)

""A national bank has no power to lend it's credit." Famers v. Bluefield 11

F2d 83, 271 US 669. "Banking corporations cannot lend credit." FNB

Amarillo v. Slaton School Dist. Tex Civ App 1933, 58 SW 2d 870. "A

national bank has no authority to lend its credit." Johnston v.

Chalottesville N Bank C. C. Va. 1879 FED CAS. 7425 "A national

bank...cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or

guarantor for him, such an act is ultra vires..." Merchants' Bank v. Baird,

160 F 642.

(Your comments please)

Therefore, any 'loan' which is an 'unsecured loan'... can be construed

as being illegal. As well as every credit card ever issued!

(your comments please)

A bank can and does legally lend it's "money" as defined as HJR 192

(The federal reserve act of 1913). However, each bank must have a

charter. And NO bank charter gives ANY bank the right to lend it's

credit.

(TRUE OR FALSE...your comments please )

"In the federal courts, it is well settled that a national bank has not

power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or

guarantor for him". Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat'l Bank 11F 2d

83, 271 U.S. 669

"The exercise of powers not expressly granted to national banks is

prohibited". First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 92 U.S. 122, 128;

California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U.S. 362, 367; Concord Bank v. Hawkins,

174 U.S. 364.

NOTE:

Anyone have any ideas on why the above CANNOT BE USED AS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, and if the above precedents are valid, would this not make ALL CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS " NULL AND VOID" ?

Also, assuming the above are valid, would this not constitute "LACK OF STANDING" if in fact banks or credit card companies do not have the authority to loan credit?

maybe someone with access to 'LEXIS" OR "PACER" can help us out here. I don't have access to either one !

Edited March 16, 2011 by Prosay

[formerpara]

I have been out of the paralegal world for quite some time, but I remember that in order to cite case law one had to make sure that the cases had NOT been over-turned etc as you asked. I think you can type in the cite and read look to see if there is subsequent case law. Again I am dusting off my brain here. I too am curious if you are correct. You are very thorough and many of your posts have helped me in my fight.

[Prosay]

I have been out of the paralegal world for quite some time, but I remember that in order to cite case law one had to make sure that the cases had NOT been over-turned etc as you asked. I think you can type in the cite and read look to see if there is subsequent case law. Again I am dusting off my brain here. I too am curious if you are correct. You are very thorough and many of your posts have helped me in my fight.

Thanks, formerpara..I don't have access to either one, maybe someone else does and will help us out here with some "cites" !

[HobbesMG]

I'm not interested in any argument, being chastised etc. I am looking for some straight answers. So if anyone can offer some constructive input on this post, it will be appreciated.

Also, I am especially interested in any law or higher court ruling which may have rejected or overturned theses cases. If no such higher court ruling has been submitted, then why can't these 'case precedents not be used as "affirmative defenses". I am inquiring in good faith, and would appreciate a constructive response. ( see below)

""A national bank has no power to lend it's credit." Famers v. Bluefield 11

F2d 83, 271 US 669. "Banking corporations cannot lend credit." FNB

Amarillo v. Slaton School Dist. Tex Civ App 1933, 58 SW 2d 870. "A

national bank has no authority to lend its credit." Johnston v.

Chalottesville N Bank C. C. Va. 1879 FED CAS. 7425 "A national

bank...cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or

guarantor for him, such an act is ultra vires..." Merchants' Bank v. Baird,

160 F 642.

(Your comments please)

Therefore, any 'loan' which is an 'unsecured loan'... can be construed

as being illegal. As well as every credit card ever issued!

(your comments please)

A bank can and does legally lend it's "money" as defined as HJR 192

(The federal reserve act of 1913). However, each bank must have a

charter. And NO bank charter gives ANY bank the right to lend it's

credit.

(TRUE OR FALSE...your comments please )

"In the federal courts, it is well settled that a national bank has not

power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or

guarantor for him". Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat'l Bank 11F 2d

83, 271 U.S. 669

"The exercise of powers not expressly granted to national banks is

prohibited". First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 92 U.S. 122, 128;

California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U.S. 362, 367; Concord Bank v. Hawkins,

174 U.S. 364.

NOTE:

Anyone have any ideas on why the above CANNOT BE USED AS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, and if the above precedents are valid, would this not make ALL CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS " NULL AND VOID" ?

Also, assuming the above are valid, would this not constitute "LACK OF STANDING" if in fact banks or credit card companies do not have the authority to loan credit?

maybe someone with access to 'LEXIS" OR "PACER" can help us out here. I don't have access to either one !

I dont have access to check your citations right now. Might be able to when i hit the law library tomorrow. But here is a bit of input on where i think you are going.......

These cases are stating that a bank cannot loan it's credit, not that a bank cannot offer you a credit card. Loaning credit would be the equivalent to cosigning a loan. When you get a cosigner, they are "lending you their credit". They are not giving you money to access a good or service. Banks, when issuing credit cards, are lending you money through an accepted form of payment i.e. a credit card.

I think you are confusing the definitions and you may not be going where you think you are. Read the actual cases if you can to get better clarity over what the issues are in each one.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

Do you know what "lend it's credit" means?

[Prosay]

Do you know what "lend it's credit" means?

Not exactly, please explain ?

Again I am asking in good faith..no argument please !

I guess the question remains...do they loan money from their existing accounts...or do the loan money from funds generated from the sale of your note( signed application) via the securitization process ? And if they indeed sold your account, are they still the rightful owner ?

This is definitely a gray area for me !

Constructive in put please !

Edited March 16, 2011 by Prosay

[Prosay]

I dont have access to check your citations right now. Might be able to when i hit the law library tomorrow. But here is a bit of input on where i think you are going.......

These cases are stating that a bank cannot loan it's credit, not that a bank cannot offer you a credit card. Loaning credit would be the equivalent to cosigning a loan. When you get a cosigner, they are "lending you their credit". They are not giving you money to access a good or service. Banks, when issuing credit cards, are lending you money through an accepted form of payment i.e. a credit card.

I think you are confusing the definitions and you may not be going where you think you are. Read the actual cases if you can to get better clarity over what the issues are in each one.

But the question remains...are they loaning money from their existing funds..or from the funds generated by the sale of your account via the securitization process ? And if the account was sold to an investment group, are the banks/credit card companies the actual owners and in fact have "legal standing" to pursue ?

It is most definitely a gray area for me !

[Prosay]

I dont have access to check your citations right now. Might be able to when i hit the law library tomorrow. But here is a bit of input on where i think you are going.......

These cases are stating that a bank cannot loan it's credit, not that a bank cannot offer you a credit card. Loaning credit would be the equivalent to cosigning a loan. When you get a cosigner, they are "lending you their credit". They are not giving you money to access a good or service. Banks, when issuing credit cards, are lending you money through an accepted form of payment i.e. a credit card.

I think you are confusing the definitions and you may not be going where you think you are. Read the actual cases if you can to get better clarity over what the issues are in each one.

But again, are they lending money from existing funds, or is the money which they "loaned" created as a result from selling your property ("promissory note" ie signed application) to investment groups via the securitization process ? Is that new money then deposited in the banks corp account as an asset, and then 'loaned" to you as an initial balance on your cc transactional account ?

I need to get my head wrapped around all of this, but it appears that the Credit card company may not have "legal standing" if in fact they: have not risked any of their existing corporate assets...and in fact have sold your account and perhaps relinquished ownership as a result of this sale.

Wow ! I am going nuts trying to sort this thing out !

Has anyone in here got their "head wrapped around all of this" and can provide some clear answers !