Albers v. Commercial Bank
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) The court erred in excluding the record of the suit ■of Bartholow, Lewis & Company, against the plaintiffs on the check in controversy. (2) The third instruction given for defendant was erroneous.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) The court erred in excluding the record of the suit ■of Bartholow, Lewis & Company, against the plaintiffs on the check in controversy. (2) The third instruction given for defendant was erroneous. Dickinson v. Coates, 79 Mo. 256. It proceeded upon the mistaken idea that a ■check drawn upon a bank in which the drawer has funds sufficient to meet the check, operates as an absolute .appropriation of that much money in the hands of the banker to the use of the payee. Merchants’ Nat. Bk. v. Coates, 79 Mo. 168. * (3) The refusal of plaintiffs’ instruction…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The plaintiffs, partners under the firm name of Albers, McGrinitie & Horner, sued defendant for .$3,000, which they alleged defendant received as deposit .and refused to pay when requested. Albers, McGrinitie & Horner, on the twenty-second of September, 1876, made their check on the defendant bank for $2,602.09, payable to Caruthers & Company, who, on the same day deposited it with Bartholow, Lewis & Company, and thereby made their account with that bank good. On the next day this ■check was cleared on defendant, in the usual course of business. Plaintiffs and Caruthers & Company had dealings…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dickinson v. CoatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
3Cited by17 opinions
- Aiple v. South Side National Bank in St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969
- Hunt v. Security State BankOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Coseboom v. Marshall TrustNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1960
- First National Bank v. McConnellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Bank of Springfield v. First National BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.