Originally Posted by
Rock Anthony
Excellent conversation going on here!
RThomas, are you suggesting that deposits of lawful money into a bank can still be considered as loans to the bank?
What they are projecting to one via their case law is their presumption is that one’s deposit is a loan. My questions to you would be what is ‘lawful’ ‘money’ to you? Who ultimately decides that the ‘money’ that you accept is ‘lawful’ ‘money?’ Does the ‘money’ that you accept pass clear title (free and clear of any liens like the ‘money’ stated as ‘dollars’ you deposited)? What title did you pass to the bank when you deposited the substance of your labor? Was the title that you passed full title or only title to the use and possession (as a loan would convey)?
I have an agreement with BofA such that only lawful money goes in, and only lawful money comes out - no conversion of labor to Fed credit.
To properly respond to this I would need to see the actual wording. My initial response would be that I see some merit in the ‘no conversion of labor to Fed credit, but, as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’
P.S. Excellent posts, you have made. Thanks for the dilligent research. Perhaps Admin will add a "Thank You" feature to StSC.
P.P.S. I remember initiating a chat session with BofA. I asked if they offered a "Special Depository" type of account as a product to its customers. As a matter of fact, I even provided the legal defintion of "special deposit" during the chat session. The answer was, "no".
They may not offer it, but that does not mean one cannot clarify the title passed to them. I see them as being able to be placed in a position of having a difficult time explaining why they would only accept a passing of full title vs. a limited title (i.e. for possession and use only). A loan is defined by ‘their’ law ‘diction’ary, Bouvier’s below;
LOAN, contracts. The act by which a person lets another have a thing to be used by him gratuitously, and which is to be returned, either in specie or in kind, agreeably to the terms of the contract. The thing which is thus transferred is also called a loan. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1077.
[I have been reading several bank agreements online and none state any agreement to accept anything that is not in kind to what was deposited. What one deposits is free and clear of any liens, what they are ‘offering’ or ‘tendering’ is not free and clear of any liens. It is not in specie or in kind. One deposited money for one’s credit and did not receive money for one’s credit in return; one is tendered (offered) money of one’s debt instead. This is 180 degrees the opposite of what one deposited; (a mirror image)]
2. A loan in general implies that a thing is lent without reward; but, in some cases, a loan may be for a reward; as, the loan of money. 7 Pet. R. 109.
3. In order to make a contract usurious, there must be a loan; Cowp. 112, 770; 1 Ves. jr. 527; 2 Bl. R. 859; 3 Wils. 390 and the borrower must be bound to return the money at all events. 2 Scho. & Lef. 470. The purchase of a bond or note is not a loan ; 3 Scho. & Lef. 469; 9 Pet. R 103; but if such a purchase be merely colorable, it will be considered as a loan. 2 John. Cas. 60; Id. 66; 12 S. & R. 46; 15 John. R. 44.
It would be helpful if cites to your definition were included, as dictionary names lead to verification and the date of definitions show when changes have been made in relation to their monetary system presented (they will be bound by meanings in existence at the time of their will/wish expressed). This definition is cited as being made from Bouvier, thus it is not a direct cite of Bouvier (it’s one’s cite of another’s cite).
Reply With Quote