Clarke v. Ripley Saving's Bank & Trust Co.

I concur in the result in this case as set forth in Judge KE’TCHUM’S opinion, but am unable to agree to some of the rulings made therein.

I agree that the chancellor erred in holding that the petitioner did not originally deposit the $2,500 in the bank. This deposit created the relation of debtor and creditor between him and the bank. The fact that the hank did not credit the petitioner’s account with this amount is, I think, immaterial and not controlling. That he did not formally draw a check against the deposit is also immaterial. A verbal order to a hank to pay a snm of money is no less…