Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Cedar Rapids National Bank

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided February 12, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kindig, J. —

The primary question involved in this litigation is whether or not the defendant-appellant was the plaintiff-appellee’s subagent for the purposes of collecting a check from the Commercial State Bank, of Britt.. If such sub-agency existed, appellee was not required to sue the principal agent,- but could legally, proceed directly against the subagent. . Guelich v. National State Bank, 56 Iowa 434. Hence, it is important to ascertain whether there was such subagency. . Appellee’s entire theory of recovery is founded upon that basis. With the principle upon which redress is predicated…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wettlaufer v. BaxterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
  2. Acme Hay & Mill Feed Co. v. Metropolitan National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
  3. Guelich v. National State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
  4. Leach v. Iowa State Savings Bank of ManningSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  5. Johnson v. . LassiterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Home Indemnity Co. v. State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
  2. Garren v. First Realty, Ltd.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1992
  3. Goeman v. Live Stock National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
  4. Soldier Valley Savings Bank v. Camanche Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API