Legal Opinion

Dow v. Stockport Savings Bank

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided November 16, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMorling, J.

-As the case comes here, the only item in question is a charge made by defendant to plaintiff’s account, of $5,518.19. Defendant claims the credit because of its having paid a sight draft for that amount, drawn by Keller upon plaintiff, to pay the balance a note °f $10,000 held by Keller, and signed by plaintiff and by J. H. McCarty, who was the president of the defendant bank. The record shows no semblance of authority to defendant to pay this sight draft. The defendant was not the holder of the $10,000 note, and therefore had no implied authority, as the holder of a note owed by plaintiff…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Holden v. . New York and Erie BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  3. Glassell Development Co. v. Citizens' Natlional Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Welsh v. . German American BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  5. German Savings Bank v. Citizens National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Albia State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
  2. Pierce & Gamet v. Live Stock National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API