Below is case law that explains why Credit Card Companies always sell their debt to Attorneys for less than 20%.\u00c2\u00a0 They are buying credit extended debt.\u00c2\u00a0 If the Credit Company were to show up in court they could run the risk of being caught red handed in lending computer generated credit.\u00c2\u00a0 This is one primary reason for the inflated US dollar.<\/p>\n
The Defendant, M & T BANK<\/strong>, has no right to lend credit as this is a violation of their corporate charter and violates Federal law, and is prohibited under the doctrine of ultra vires. <\/strong><\/p>\n The United States Supreme Court and the lower courts have long recognized that the banks cannot loan credit.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not<\/p>\n power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for<\/p>\n him.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/strong>Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat ‘l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.<\/span><\/p>\n “A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n . . . <\/strong>Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank<\/span>, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporation within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often .. .\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank<\/span>, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229.\u00c2\u00a0 American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank<\/span>, 194 NW 430.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns<\/p>\n out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases <\/strong><\/p>\n might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships<\/strong>.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank<\/span>, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.<\/p>\n “It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal<\/p>\n Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing<\/p>\n the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra<\/p>\n vires . . .” Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union<\/span>, 133 SC<\/p>\n 202, 130 SE 759(1926).<\/p>\n “Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of<\/p>\n a bank’s business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as<\/p>\n its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name<\/p>\n only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money<\/p>\n would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics, . . .<\/p>\n Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real<\/p>\n business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank,<\/p>\n the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and<\/p>\n Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248.” American<\/span><\/p>\n Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank<\/span>, 194 NW 429.<\/p>\n “It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent,<\/p>\n to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be<\/p>\n done.” Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L ‘Herrison<\/span>, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).<\/p>\n “There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser.” National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson<\/span>, 55 E 471.<\/p>\n “A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” First Nat’l Bank of Tallapoosa<\/span><\/p>\n v. Monroe<\/span>. 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.<\/p>\n “.. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must<\/p>\n be money that it loans, not its credit.” Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank<\/span>,<\/p>\n 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.<\/p>\n “A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by<\/p>\n another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay<\/p>\n the sum with or without interest.” Parsons v. Fox;<\/span> 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also<\/p>\n see Kirkland v. Bailey<\/span>, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co<\/span>., 247<\/p>\n Fed Supp 878, 879.<\/p>\n Click HERE<\/a> to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Below is case law that explains why Credit Card Companies always sell their debt to Attorneys for less than 20%.\u00c2\u00a0 They are buying credit extended debt.\u00c2\u00a0 If the Credit Company were to show up in court they could run the … Continue reading