Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Shaw v. Union Bank and Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 16, 1981No. 53271Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOpala, Justice

The case presents but two questions: (a) Does a depositor have a tort claim against his banker for wrongful refusal to honor an order for withdrawal of funds on deposit? And if so, then (b) What elements of damage are recoverable?

The depositor’s appeal is from a judgment that confined his recovery to lost interest and denied his plea for other damages alleged to have been occasioned by the harmful event. While I concur in the court’s view that an ex delicto action does lie, I cannot accede to its exposition of the depositor’s recovery limits.

The surviving joint tenant in a savings account…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Patterson v. Marine N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  2. Valley National Bank v. WitterArizona Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Watson v. Stockton Morris Plan Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Brown v. Eastman National Bank of NewkirkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
  5. Fuller Ex Rel. Fuller v. NeundorfSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956

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