Anthony Caruso and Charles Schultz v. County Trust Company, a Corporation, Etc. Of Tenafly, New Jersey, Formerly Known as the Tenafly Trust Company

Third Circuit

Anthony Caruso and Charles Schultz v. County Trust Company, a Corporation, Etc. Of Tenafly, New Jersey, Formerly Known as the Tenafly Trust Company

228 F.2d 623

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 29, 1956

Docket11666

StatusPublished

This text of 228 F.2d 623 (Anthony Caruso and Charles Schultz v. County Trust Company, a Corporation, Etc. Of Tenafly, New Jersey, Formerly Known as the Tenafly Trust Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Caruso and Charles Schultz v. County Trust Company, a Corporation, Etc. Of Tenafly, New Jersey, Formerly Known as the Tenafly Trust Company, 228 F.2d 623 (3d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered against them by the district court. The suit was based upon the plaintiffs’ claim to ownership, to the extent of $7,500, of a check for $13,226.12 to the order of Associated Football Char *624 ities, Inc. which had been delivered to one Douglas G. Hertz with the approval of the president of that corporation. Hertz caused it to be deposited to the credit of the corporation in the defendant trust company from which the proceeds of the check were subsequently withdrawn. The plaintiffs claimed that they had loaned $7,500 to Hertz for the corporation and that $7,500 of the $13,226.12 check was a trust fund for the repayment of this loan. The district court, however, found that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any right to the deposit in the defendant trust company. Our study of the record satisfies us that the court did not err in so finding and in entering judgment in favor of the defendant.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered against them by the district court. The suit was based upon the plaintiffs’ claim to ownership, to the extent of $7,500, of a check for $13,226.12 to the order of Associated Football Char *624 ities, Inc. which had been delivered to one Douglas G. Hertz with the approval of the president of that corporation. Hertz caused it to be deposited to the credit of the corporation in the defendant trust company from which the proceeds of the check were subsequently withdrawn. The plaintiffs claimed that they had loaned $7,500 to Hertz for the corporation and that $7,500 of the $13,226.12 check was a trust fund for the repayment of this loan. The district court, however, found that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any right to the deposit in the defendant trust company. Our study of the record satisfies us that the court did not err in so finding and in entering judgment in favor of the defendant.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F.2d 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-caruso-and-charles-schultz-v-county-trust-company-a-corporation-ca3-1956.