Universal Premium Acceptance Corporation v. The York Bank & Trust Company
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant bank accepted drafts drawn on plaintiff containing the direction “PAY AND DEPOSIT ONLY TO THE CREDIT OF [payee]” and on which the payee’s indorse-ments were forged. Reasoning that the drafts were in effect negotiable, the district court in this diversity case entered judgment for the bank, based on Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Pennsylvania. We conclude that the explicit direction on the drafts precluded transfer and made them non-negotiable. Moreover, we hold that the indorsements in blank did not make the drafts…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- McAdam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Gerard C. Menichini, T/a Best Legal Services v. Lissa L. Grant Mellon Bank (East), Mellon Bank (East) National AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- D & G Equipment Co., Inc. v. The First National Bank of Greencastle, Pa. v. Georgion, Roger L., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Funds for Business Growth, Inc. v. MaraldoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Wettlaufer v. BaxterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- United States v. Angela KhorozianCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- McDermott v. Party City Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
- Bucci v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Krajewski v. American Honda Finance Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Rahemtulla v. HassamDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.