Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union v. Martin

Texas Supreme Court

Decided September 7, 2000No. 99-0320Published

1DissentJustice Abbott

To achieve its result, the Court must fabricate a fiction that a bank teller’s signature is Martin’s signature, even though Martin was a stranger to the transaction. Because I cannot go along with that fiction, I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. I agree with the trial court and the court of appeals that section 4.406 does not apply in this case because Martin’s unauthorized signature did not appear on an item. In addition, I agree with the court of appeals that, for the sixty-day notice provision in the Deposit Agreement to be effective, Martin must…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Rolison v. PuckettTexas Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Prætorians v. StricklandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1933
  3. Andrews v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
  4. Coleman v. Brotherhood State BankCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1979
  5. Ramzi Atti Boutros v. Riggs National Bank, D.C.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981

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

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

Powered by the Exa API