Legal Opinion · Dissent

Springfield Township v. Mellon PSFS Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 30, 2005No. 252 MAP 2003Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the Legislature intended that a bank have actual knowledge that it is dealing with a fiduciary in order for the bank to be entitled to the protections of Section 9 of the Uniform Fiduciaries Act (“UFA”), 7 P.S. § 6393. Thus, I would affirm the order of the Superior Court.

According to the Majority, “[t]he plain language of [Section 9 of the UFA] states that if a fiduciary has the power to do that which the bank allows him to do, i.e., endorse and deposit checks ‘in a bank to his personal credit’ ... the bank is not…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Zions First National Bank v. Clark Clinic Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Master Chemical Corp. v. InkrottOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Davis v. Pennsylvania Co., Etc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  4. County of MacOn v. EdgcombAppellate Court of Illinois · 1995
  5. Ramzi Atti Boutros v. Riggs National Bank, D.C.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981

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