Bank of Taylorsville v. Blyth

1 Citing case

  1. Fine v. Harney Co. National Bank

    181 Or. 411 (Or. 1947)   Cited 9 times
    In Fine, the employee simply had no authority to receive deposits of his own checks, and it would have been illegal for the bank to authorize such an action.

    So, likewise, were the following cases cited by plaintiffs: Ruden v. Citizens National Bank Trust Co., 64 S.D. 340, 266 N.W. 682; Citizens' Trust Co. v. Croll, 289 F. 421 (C.C.A. 7th); Wing v. Commercial Savings Bank, 103 Mich. 565, 61 N.W. 1009; People's Bank of Belleville v. Manufacturers' National Bank of Chicago, 101 U.S. 181, 25 L.ed. 907. In Bank of Taylorsville v. Blyth, 269 Ill. App. 16, also cited by the plaintiffs, it appeared that the cashier had been granted express authority to issue cashier's checks for his personal debts provided he paid for the checks. The point of distinction is the same as that in the Goshen Bank case.