Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. Commercial State Bank

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1928No. 4966Published

1Dissent

BUDGE, J.,

Dissenting. — In banking circles a deposit for a special, or specific, purpose is as well recognized as a general or special deposit. Whether a deposit is general, special or for a special purpose depends upon the agreement of the parties to the deposit. (Northern Sugar Corp. v. Thompson, 13 Fed. (2d) 829; Stephens v. Chehalis Nat. Bank, 82 Wash. 254, 141 Pac. 340.)

The contract entered into between the Title Abstract Company, trustee for the Pacific States Savings & Loan Company, and^the Commercial State Bank, on July 15, 1921, controls the character of the deposits made thereunder.…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Harrison v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
  2. Stoller v. CoatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
  3. Davidow v. GriswoldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  4. Hudspeth v. Union Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923
  5. Widman v. KelloggNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API