Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. United States Nat. Bank
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court oí the United States for the District of Oregon. Action by the United States National Bank of Portland, Or., against the Amalgamated Sugar Company, judgment for plaintiff (179 Fed. 718), and defendant brings error. The defendant in this action drew a clieck on its banker for $4,000, which in due course of banking business was received by the plaintiff, properly indorsed. and wiflioui knowledge of any defect impairing its commercial value.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court oí the United States for the District of Oregon. Action by the United States National Bank of Portland, Or., against the Amalgamated Sugar Company, judgment for plaintiff (179 Fed. 718), and defendant brings error. The defendant in this action drew a clieck on its banker for $4,000, which in due course of banking business was received by the plaintiff, properly indorsed. and wiflioui knowledge of any defect impairing its commercial value. When presented for payment, the bank upon which it was drawn refused to pay for the reason that the drawer had ordered payment…
1Opinion of the CourtHanford, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] One or the other of the parties to this lawsuit must necessarily suffer a loss because of the insolvency of the first indorsee of the check, and the question as to which must bear the loss must be decided in accordance with their respective legal rights. The reasons are obvious and sufficient for holding that the insolvent bank did not acquire any proprietary right to the check which could be maintained against the defendant, if rights of a third party were not involved. The check, however, was negotiable paper, and the unrestricted indorsement thereof…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Murray v. LardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Commissioners of Marion County v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Goodman v. SimondsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Commercial Bank of Pa. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Pana v. BowlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In re Grocers' Baking Co.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1920
- Bank of California National Ass'n v. Portland Hide & Wool Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Topco Associates, Inc. v. First National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- People ex rel. Russel v. Michigan Avenue Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1926
- MacK v. DaileyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.