Thompson v. Cedar Rapids National Bank
Supreme Court of Iowa
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
- Wettlaufer v. BaxterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Acme Hay & Mill Feed Co. v. Metropolitan National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Guelich v. National State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Leach v. Iowa State Savings Bank of ManningSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Johnson v. . LassiterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Home Indemnity Co. v. State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
- Garren v. First Realty, Ltd.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1992
- Goeman v. Live Stock National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
- Soldier Valley Savings Bank v. Camanche Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1935