Springfield Township v. Mellon PSFS Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Zions First National Bank v. Clark Clinic Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
- Master Chemical Corp. v. InkrottOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Davis v. Pennsylvania Co., Etc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- County of MacOn v. EdgcombAppellate Court of Illinois · 1995
- 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.