Opinion

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Bank of Charleston, Nat. Banking Ass'n

  • 267 F. 367
  • 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2186
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jul 6, 1920
Status
Published
Author
Rose
On the bench
Pritchard, Rose, Woods
Cited by
6 cases

The opinion

ROSE, District Judge

(dissenting). I think the difference between the courts as to the liability of a drawee of a check to the payee for an unauthorized payment upon it does not turn upon the form of action. The Supreme Court, as I understand it, holds that the drawee is not liable to the payee for a mispayment due to simple negligence, unmixed with any element of bad faith. If the allegation in the declaration that the bank knew it had no right to pay the check was unqualified, it would doubtless be good; but the plaintiff was not willing to undertake the burden of proving so much, and so, after the statement that the bank knew, it added “or should have known,” and that :may amount to nothing more than a charge of carelessness.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.