Tietke v. Union Bank of Chicago

2 Citing cases

  1. Barrett v. Reuter

    289 Ill. App. 221 (Ill. App. Ct. 1937)   Cited 3 times

    Defendants also say that the courts of this State have never held that the Trust Companies Act is applicable to a banking corporation; that the questions, first, of whether a bank must qualify under this act before accepting and executing trusts, or, secondly, whether if it does so qualify it has the right or authority to deposit assets of the bank for the benefit of such trusts, have never been passed on by the courts of this State in any particular case. This is said to be true of In re National Bank of Ottawa, 273 Ill. App. 545; Wedesweiler v. Brundage, 297 Ill. 228; Gits v. Foreman, 360 Ill. 461; Tietke v. Union Bank of Chicago, 259 Ill. App. 341; Valulis v. Phillip State Bank Trust Co., 266 Ill. App. 78; People ex rel. Nelson v. Citizens Trust Savings Bank, 272 Ill. App. 444. Defendants admit that there is in these cases dictum to the effect that the law is applicable to banks; language from which such a conclusion might be derived; assumptions that such is the law, but nowhere in a case where it was necessary to a decision has it been expressly so held.

  2. Valulis v. Phillip State Bank Trust Co.

    266 Ill. App. 78 (Ill. App. Ct. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    When plaintiff filed his original declaration in the present suit, the Weissbrodt case, supra, had not been decided. While the suit was pending this division of this Appellate Court rendered its opinion on December 16, 1930, in the case of Tietke v. Union Bank of Chicago, 259 Ill. App. 341. During March, 1931, plaintiff's attorneys, evidently relying upon the holdings in that case, filed the two additional counts in the present suit.