First National Bank v. Peisert
2 Pennyp. 277
Opinion
That the president of the bank knew that the moneys deposited by the plaintiff were the funds of the assigned estate of Miller, was a fact of which there was ample evidence, and it was fairly submitted to the jury. This knowledge he acquired in the course of the business of the bank. That from such knowledge the bank is affected with notice is very clearly settled in Harrisburg v. Tyler, 3 W. & S., 373, and other cases.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
First National Bank v. Peisert, 2 Pennyp. 277 (Pa. 1882).
2 Pennyp. 277 (First National Bank v. Peisert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Witherow v. Weaver
12 A.2d 92 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)