Legal Opinion

Dahl & Penne, Inc. v. State Bank

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1924PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRand, J.

It is urged on behalf of the superintendent of banks that the State Bank of Portland, until it 'closed its doors, was liable because of its error in an action at law for the recovery of the *71money, or else, as a depositor creditor, for the amount shown on the deposit-book, plus the amount of the error. The petitioner, however, contends that because of this mistake the retention by the bank of the $1,000 constituted a special deposit and that the bank became a bailee of the money, holding the same in trust for petitioner.

At the time this check was presented to the bank for payment, petitioner’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bank of the Republic v. MillardSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  2. &198tna National Bank v. . Fourth National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  3. Marks v. First Nat. BankOregon Supreme Court · 1917
  4. U. S. Nat. Bank v. First Trust & Savings BankOregon Supreme Court · 1911

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. TauscherOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Brown v. New York Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
  3. Stevens v. First Interstate BankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  4. Union State Bank v. Peoples State BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Phil Grossmayer Co. v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1958

1 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