First National Bank v. Bache

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

First National Bank v. Bache

71 Pa. 213, 1872 Pa. LEXIS 132

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 13, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 Pa. 213 (First National Bank v. Bache) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First National Bank v. Bache, 71 Pa. 213, 1872 Pa. LEXIS 132 (Pa. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Thompson, C. J.

The referee having found on competent testimony that the timber from which the money in dispute was derived was the property of the plaintiff below, the law was clear that after notice of this fact to the bank, and indemnity, if it paid it over to the depositor, it would be at its own risk. As the property itself was a trust for the benefit of its owner, so necessarily became the fund, and it could be followed through any number of transmutations by the owner while ever it could be -identified. The bank would, of course, be entirely justified in paying to a depositor money standing to his credit, if not notified that it belonged to another, and with notice not to pay it on his check. But where such notice is given, the bank will pay to the depositor at its own risk: Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank v. King, 7 P. F. Smith 202. This cáse fully sustains the rulings of the referee on the law of this case.

Judgment affirmed..

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

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Thompson, C. J.

The referee having found on competent testimony that the timber from which the money in dispute was derived was the property of the plaintiff below, the law was clear that after notice of this fact to the bank, and indemnity, if it paid it over to the depositor, it would be at its own risk. As the property itself was a trust for the benefit of its owner, so necessarily became the fund, and it could be followed through any number of transmutations by the owner while ever it could be -identified. The bank would, of course, be entirely justified in paying to a depositor money standing to his credit, if not notified that it belonged to another, and with notice not to pay it on his check. But where such notice is given, the bank will pay to the depositor at its own risk: Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank v. King, 7 P. F. Smith 202. This cáse fully sustains the rulings of the referee on the law of this case.

Judgment affirmed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Pa. 213, 1872 Pa. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-bache-pa-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack