Legal Opinion · Dissent

American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Mercantile National Bank of Miami Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 23, 1960No. Nos. 59-754, 59-755, 59-756Published

1Dissent

CARROLL, CHAS., Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent because I am of the opinion that there was a triable issue on a material matter on which the right to re-' cover under the second count depended, and that was whether there was negligence or fault on the part of the collecting bank which caused or contributed to the payment of the checks by the Chicago banks. See United States v. Chase National Bank, 252 U.S. 485, 494, 40 S.Ct. 361, 64 L.Ed. 675; Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C. v. Dade Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 5 Cir.1959, 268 F.2d 951, 953.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. Chase National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. The Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C., Etc. v. Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959