From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Fulton National Bank v. Tate
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
363 F.2d 562 (1966)
Facts
Steve Tate (defendant) offered to trade some of his personal property for property owned by the Georgia Marble Company (Marble), but Marble refused. Later, Tate became the executor of the S. C. Tate Estate (the estate). Marble leased mineral rights from the estate and had a strong desire to extend its lease. Through litigation and shootings, Tate and Marble intensely negotiated both Tate’s personal land-exchange proposal and the possible lease extension from the estate. Eventually, Tate and Marble reached a tentative deal on the land exchange. However, Marble would not execute the deal until it also had an extension of the mineral-rights lease from the estate. Approximately six months later, acting as the estate’s executor, Tate reached a deal with Marble to extend the mineral-rights lease. All the estate’s beneficiaries agreed to the proposed lease deal, but not all of them knew about Tate’s personal deal or that it hinged on the lease’s execution. At that point, Marble executed both the lease extension with the estate and the personal land exchange with Tate. Fulton National Bank (the bank) (plaintiff) sued Tate on behalf of the estate’s beneficiaries, claiming that Tate had violated his duty of loyalty to the beneficiaries. A special master ruled that there was no breach. The bank appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
