Legal Opinion
Atwell v. Mercantile Trust Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 7, 1928No. Docket No. 6472PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SPENCE, J., pro tem.
The plaintiff and respondent, a depositor in the defendant and appellant bank, brought this action by filing a £<Complaint for Deposits.” Despondent alleged a balance due and unpaid of $1,050, which appellant refused to pay upon demand.
Appellant denied that any balance was due or unpaid, and alleged the disbursement of the entire deposits upon order of the respondent. Appellant further alleged that the action was barred by subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that respondent was barred by laches.
Upon the trial no question was raised by respondent…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Shipman v. Bank of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Los Angeles Investment Co. v. Home Savings Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Union Tool Co. v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Janin v. London & San Francisco BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McCornack v. Central State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Roy Supply, Inc. v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Detroit Piston Ring Co. v. Wayne County & Home Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Federal Election Commission v. James ToledanoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Merchants Nat. Bk. v. Continental Nat. Bk.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank of Oklahoma CityCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.