Legal Opinion

Reichert v. Fidelity Bank & Trust Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1932No. Docket No. 225, Calendar No. 36,371PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.

Defendant Fidelity Bank & Trust Company, originally organized as a trust company, was authorized to conduct a general banking business, with commercial and savings departments, under 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 12019.

For some years, petitioner, Paw Paw Savings Bank, had kept a commercial deposit account with defendant and sometimes borrowed money from it. Defendant was closed October 7, 1931, at which time petitioner owed it $10,734.35 on a note for borrowed money and had commercial credits on deposit account and certificate of $9,415.85.

When the note was given, defendant’s officers “allotted and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thompson v. Union Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1902
  2. McGraw v. Union Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Williams v. JohnsonMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Peters v. Union Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1902
  5. State Banking Commissioner v. E. Jossman State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1915

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ulmer v. Fulton, Supt.Ohio Supreme Court · 1935
  2. General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists v. SullivanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974
  3. Dawson v. DetweilerMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Reichert v. Farmers State Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Wilde, State Ex. v. RichardsWyoming Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API