Legal Opinion

Spencer v. Sterling Bank

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 11, 1998No. B108008PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.

The interesting issue in this case is whether a check indorsed “for deposit only” without further limitation (“X, for deposit only”) can be deposited only into the indorser’s unidentified account or whether it can be deposited into anybody’s account at any bank. In the published portion of this opinion, we explain that this indorsement is both restrictive (the check must be deposited and cannot otherwise be negotiated) and blank (to the extent that it does not identify the person for whose benefit the check must be deposited). “X, for deposit only” is to a deposit…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rossiter v. BenoitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  2. Wolfe v. State Farm Fire & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. Nordin v. Eagle Rock State BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. La Junta State Bank v. TravisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
  5. Christian v. California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. v. Ace American InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  2. Hussain v. Malik (In Re Hussain)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  3. Spencer v. Sterling BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. In re: Syed Shahzad HussainUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API