New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City

1931 OK 748, 7 P.2d 638, 154 Okla. 285, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 506
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 1, 1931
Docket19797
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 1931 OK 748 (New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City, 1931 OK 748, 7 P.2d 638, 154 Okla. 285, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 506 (Okla. 1931).

Opinion

McNEILL, J.

This is a companion case to No. 19796, entitled “New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. First National Bank, Oklahoma City et al.,” this day decided by this court. (154 Okla. 74, 6 P. (2d) 779.) The parties are the same, except that in case No. 19796 the Exchange National Bank of Ardmore was codefendant with the First National Bank of Oklahoma City, Okla. In the case at bar, the American. National Bank of Ardmore is a eodefendant with the First National Bank of Oklahoma City. The pleadings, evidence, agreed stipulation of facts and briefs are substantially the same as in case No. 19796. In the case at bar the check involved is in the sum of $6,461.05, being one of the two cashier’s checks of the First National Bank of Oklahoma City mentioned in said cause No. 19796 payable to “S. F. Haynie, County Treasurer.” The same was indorsed by “S. F. Haynie, County Treas. urer, Carter County, Okla., and presented to said American National Bank of Ardmore instead of to said Exchange National Bank. The American National Bank paid the proceeds thereof to said S. F. Haynie individually, upon his request, and the same was misappropriated by said Haynie to the detriment of Carter county.

In view of the opinion in case No. 19796, we hold that the principles of law therein announced are controlling herein, and that the judgment of the trial court should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents. PUGH, Special Justice, absent.

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

Related

Chamerda v. Opie
197 A.3d 982 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2018)
Yerion v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
27 F. Supp. 3d 677 (E.D. Virginia, 2014)
Marshall v. American Federation of Government Employees
996 F. Supp. 1334 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1998)
Hamilton v. Amwar Petroleum Co., Inc.
1989 OK 15 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1989)
Hosey v. Central Bank of Birmingham, Inc.
528 So. 2d 843 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Duer v. Hoover & Bracken Energies, Inc.
1986 OK CIV APP 12 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1986)
Warren v. Bank of Marion
618 F. Supp. 317 (W.D. Virginia, 1985)
Zehner v. Post Oak Oil Co.
640 P.2d 991 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1982)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Bonney
299 F. Supp. 790 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1969)
Ellison v. Skelly Oil Co.
1951 OK 122 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1951)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Curtis
182 F.2d 122 (Tenth Circuit, 1950)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Curtis
85 F. Supp. 399 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1949)
Berryman v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co.
164 F.2d 734 (Tenth Circuit, 1947)
McCrabb v. Moulton
124 F.2d 689 (Eighth Circuit, 1942)
Noble v. Johnson
1937 OK 337 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1931 OK 748, 7 P.2d 638, 154 Okla. 285, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-amsterdam-casualty-co-v-first-nat-bank-of-oklahoma-city-okla-1931.