Daley v. City of Melvindale
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.
The decree of the trial court should be affirmed. It is true that the mere designation of a bank deposit by a certain name is insufficient, of itself, to characterize it as a trust fund, or to put the bank on notice that the deposit so designated, but without any agreement or conditions attached as to withdrawal, may be withdrawn only for a specific purpose. Nevertheless the Melvindale State Bank must have known that the funds deposited with it by the village (now the city of Melvindale) were public funds, raised in manner provided by law, and dedicated and allocated by the village to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McBrian v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Georges Township v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Piscataway Twp. v. First Nat. Bank of DunellenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
- Griswold v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Board of Drainage Commissioners v. City National BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Corkins v. RitterMichigan Supreme Court · 1950
- League Gen. Ins. Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
- Kirkendall v. HeckingerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
- Polland & Cook v. Lehmann, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1992
- Polland & Cook v. Lehmann, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1992