Henry v. Martin

60 N.W. 263, 88 Wis. 367, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 45
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided October 2, 1894·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Newhah, J.

This case is ruled by Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Flanders, 87 Wis. 237. The plaintiff made no special deposit of his money in Seymours Bank. It was not expected that the identical money deposited would be kept and returned, nor is it claimed that it has been kept; nor that any part of the money found in the assignee’s hands is the identical money deposited. The deposit created the relation of debtor and creditor. The bank became the plaintiff’s debtor, not his bailee. The plaintiff’s relation to the assets of the bank in the hands of the assignee is in no wise different from the relation of the common creditors of the bank to the same assets.

By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Henry v. Martin, 60 N.W. 263, 88 Wis. 367, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 45 (Wis. 1894).

60 N.W. 263 (Henry v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ruben v. Banking Commission
256 N.W. 712 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1934)
O'Neil v. Russell
223 N.W. 82 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1929)
American National Bank v. Owensboro Savings Bank & Trust Company's
142 S.W. 239 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1912)
Bank of Indiahoma v. Simpson
1907 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1906)
Cherry v. Territory of Oklahoma
1906 OK 49 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1906)
Officer v. Officer
94 N.W. 947 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Bank Commissioners v. Security Trust Co.
49 A. 113 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1900)
Paul v. Draper
59 S.W. 77 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Evangelical Synod of North America v. Sohoeneich
45 S.W. 647 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Stevens v. Williams
64 N.W. 422 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1895)
Dowie v. Humphrey
64 N.W. 315 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1895)