Citizens' Savings Bank v. Blakesley
Ohio Supreme Court
ERROR. Reserved in the District Court of Hancock county. The original action was by the defendant in error, John Henry Blakesley, an infant, suing by bis next friend, against the plaintiff in error, for the amount of an alleged indebtedness represented by a certificate of deposit of the tenor following: “No. 24,882. CitizeNS Savings Bane, l Bindlay, Ohio, Jan. 23, 1878. j John Henry Blakesley has deposited in this Bank Five Hundred and Borty-one Dollars and Borty-one Cents,…
Read the full summary
ERROR. Reserved in the District Court of Hancock county. The original action was by the defendant in error, John Henry Blakesley, an infant, suing by bis next friend, against the plaintiff in error, for the amount of an alleged indebtedness represented by a certificate of deposit of the tenor following: “No. 24,882. CitizeNS Savings Bane, l Bindlay, Ohio, Jan. 23, 1878. j John Henry Blakesley has deposited in this Bank Five Hundred and Borty-one Dollars and Borty-one Cents, payable to the order of himself June 1st, 1878, in current funds on return of this certificate properly indorsed.…
1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.
Divested of all circumstances from which fraud or bad faith may bo imputed to the transaction now under consideration, the following is a fair statement of the facts found by the court below:
Carlins & Co., a partnership, was engaged in private banking. It issued its certificate of deposit, in the usual course of business, to a depositor. Thereafter, the savings bank, a corporation, was organized and proceeded to do a banking business at the banking room of Carlins & Co., who proceeded to wind up their business by redeeming, at the counter of the savings bank, acting by its cashier, their…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Merchants' Bank v. State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers & Drovers' BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Frankfort Bank v. JohnsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1844