Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Morgan
Supreme Court of the United States
EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE .UNITED STATES EOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OE NEW YORK. This was an action commenced, by defendants in error, as plaintiffs below, agatpst the bank, to recover an alleged balance . of account. The facts are thus stated by the court.
Read the full summary
EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE .UNITED STATES EOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OE NEW YORK. This was an action commenced, by defendants in error, as plaintiffs below, agatpst the bank, to recover an alleged balance . of account. The facts are thus stated by the court. The defendants m error, subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, and partners under the name of Ashburner & Go., brought this action to recover a balance alleged to be due on a deposit account opened at the Leather Manufacturers’ National Bank of New York City, in the name of “¥m. B. Cooper, Junior, agent for Ashburner & Co.” The…
1Opinion of the Court
Me; Justice HaelaN
delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts as above reported, he1 continued:
The court' below, as shown, by its opinion, proceeded upon the ground that Cooper was under no duty whatever to the bank to examine his pass-book and the vouchers returned with it, in order to ascertain whether his account was correctly kept. For this reason, it is contended, the bank, even if without fault itself, has no legal cause of complaint, although it may have been misled to its prejudice by-'the failure of the depositor to give timely notice of the fact — which, by ordinary…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Cooke v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- President of the Bank of the United States v. President of the Bank of GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- First Nat. Bank of Washington v. WhitmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Perkins v. HartSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by259 opinions
- Rothschild v. . Title Guarantee Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Robb v. VosSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Critten v. Chemical National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Schock v. NashSupreme Court of Delaware · 1999
- Los Angeles Investment Co. v. Home Savings Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
254 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.