Legal Opinion
Sequoyah State Bank v. Union National Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided October 5, 1981No. 81-68PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.
The only issue in this case is whether Union Bank by its own initiative can stop payment on a personal money order it had issued in exchange for a hot check and, thereby, cause Sequoyah Bank, a holder in due course, to bear the loss. Under these circumstances the loss must be borne by Union Bank which issued the negotiable instrument to be circulated in commerce.
We do not decide the question of whether the purchaser may stop payment, but we do hold that after the sale of a personal money order, the issuing bank cannot stop payment on the instrument.
A…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Garden Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. First National City BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
- Garden Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. First National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Rose Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1964
- Rose Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1963
- Krom v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Interfirst Bank Carrollton v. Northpark National Bank of Dallas, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)1984
- Utley Lumber Co. v. Bank of the BootheelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1991
- First National Bank v. Duncan Savings & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1987
- Smith v. Farmers Union Mutual InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 2011
- Duggan v. State BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.