Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. Bank
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati. The action below was by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover on a bank check. The petition was in words and figures following: “The plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio.
Read the full summary
Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati. The action below was by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover on a bank check. The petition was in words and figures following: “The plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio. The defendant is a corporation duly organized and • existing under the laws of the United States. ‘ ‘There is due to the plaintiff from the defendant, upon the check a copy of which, there being no credits nor endorsments thereon, is hereto attached, made part hereof, and marked “Exhibit A,” the sum of…
1Opinion of the CourtSpear, J.
The question presented is whether or not a payee of a bank check can maintain an action against the bank, where the latter, on presentation, refuses to pay it, the drawer having at the time a credit on the books of the bank more than sufficient to meet the cheek?
Questions bearing some relation to this have been considered by this court, but the precise question has not heretofore been determined.
Authority is found supporting’ the affirmative of this proposition. The grounds' urged are not identical in all cases, nor is the reasoning wholly consistent, but the following is believed to be a…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Coster v. Mayor, Aldermen & CommonaltyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- First Nat. Bank of Washington v. WhitmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Burr v. . BeersNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- &198tna National Bank v. . Fourth National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.