Legal Opinion

Security Fence Co. v. Manchester Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 18, 1957No. 4601PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

The Trial Court’s ruling that the defendant is liable for conversion under RSA 337:21, 23 comes to this court unquestioned by either party. While the applicability of section 21 is not apparent (see Beutel’s Brannan, Negotiable Instruments Law (7th ed.) 433), under section 23 the ruling establishes that the defendant acquired “no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor” because the endorsement by the payee’s agent was “without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be” and was therefore “wholly inoperative.” S. 23, supra. The liability thus…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Standard Steam Specialty Co. v. Corn Exchange BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  2. Louisville Trust Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
  3. Blacker & Shepard Co. v. Granite Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  4. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Liberty National Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1956
  5. Berryman v. OrrCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1830

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. MacKey-woodard, Inc. v. Citizens State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1966
  2. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. DeLellis v. BurkeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
  4. True v. Fleet BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  5. Wolters v. American Republic InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2003

3 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