Legal Opinion
Transcontinental Oil Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 1, 1927No. 26,054PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
The action is one to recover damages of defendant, the Federal Reserve Bank of the ninth reserve district, located at Minneapolis, this state, for negligence in the collection of two cashier’s checks, issued by the First National Bank of Eureka, South Dakota, both dated August 2, 1920, payable to plaintiff and transmitted to its office in Chicago, Illinois. The aggregate amount of the checks was |2,670.35. Plaintiff indorsed them by unrestricted indorsement and deposited the same on August 5, 1920, in the First National Bank of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Farmers & Merchants Bank of Monroe v. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond v. MalloySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Malloy v. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1922
- Minneapolis Sash & Door Co. v. Metropolitan BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- First National Bank v. Citizens' Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Federal Reserve BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- Wadsworth v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Federal Reserve BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1932
- Hill v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.