Legal Opinion

Reichert v. Farmers' & Workingmen's Savings Bank

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1932No. Calendar 36,275PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] Certified questions from the Jackson circuit court arising upon petition of receiver of defendant bank for directions to govern administration of his trust.

First question: "Under section 11928, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, must the investments of the savings department of a State bank be held solely for the benefit of savings depositors?"

Answer: Yes.

The statute cited is in part:

"Any bank combining the business of a commercial bank and a savings bank, and operating an…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Foster v. RowMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Bissell v. HeathMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  4. Sherwood v. Central Michigan Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Upham v. BramwellOregon Supreme Court · 1922

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. American State Bank v. AaronMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Reichert v. Fidelity Bank & Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Detroit Trust Co. v. AllingerMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Cooper v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1934
  5. Hodgell v. WildeWyoming Supreme Court · 1937

4 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