Sioux Falls National Bank v. First National Bank

6 Dakota 113
Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota·Decided October 15, 1888·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court :

The judgment in this case is affirmed, the court holds :

1. The court erred in denying the motion of the receiver to be substituted as sole defendant in the action.

2. The appeal taken by the defendant bank, after the appointment of the receiver, from the order refusing to dissolve the attachment, was unauthorized and must be dismissed.

3. The cashier’s check sued upon in this action, upon its delivery to Howard as treasurer, immediately became the property of the county and the defendant bank could not be heard to assert its want of power to issue the same, or the existence of any fact which might be a defense between itself and Howard in his individual capacity; and the plaintiff bank, having, by the transfer, succeeded to all of the rights of the county, there was no error in directing the verdict of the jury.

All concur except Spencer, J., not sitting.

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

Sioux Falls National Bank v. First National Bank, 6 Dakota 113 (dakotasup 1888).

6 Dakota 113 (Sioux Falls National Bank v. First National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tourtelot v. Whithed
84 N.W. 8 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)