Legal Opinion · Dissent

Strickland Transportation Co. v. First State Bank

Texas Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1948No. A-1638Published

1DissentJustice Hart

While agreeing that under our decisions the petitioner has no direct cause of action against the bank, I dissent from the majority’s holding that the petitioner cannot recover from the bank as assignee of the depositor, White Auto Store.

The cause of action which White Auto Store undertook to assign to petitioner consisted of the rights of White Auto Store, as a depositor in the respondent bank and as the drawer of the checks, to recover against the bank for wrongfully paying checks to Akard, who had no authority to indorse or to cash them. Undoubtedly the drawee bank owed a contractual duty…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. First Nat. Bank of Washington v. WhitmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Ermentrout v. Girard Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  3. National Commercial Bank v. Miller & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  4. Thomson v. . Bank of British North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  5. McFadden v. FollrathSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911

27 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