Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Exchange Nat'l Bank Vs. Third Nat'l Bank

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 24, 1884

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

84 entries 1 linked 83 unlinked
Show
  1. Britton Vs. Niccolls US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1881
  2. Exchange Nat'l Bank v. Third
    Search
  3. Nat'l Bank - 112 U.S. 276 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Exchange Nat'l Bank v. Third
    Search
  4. Nat'l Bank, 112 U.S. 276 (1884) Exchange National Bank of Pittsburgh v. Third
    Search
  5. having been used in selecting that bank. Such would be the result of the rule established in Massachusetts, Fabens v. Mercantile
    Search
  6. Dorchester Bank v. New
    Search
  7. in Maryland, Jackson v. Union
    Search
  8. in Connecticut, Lawrence v. Stonington
    Search
  9. East Haddam Bank v. Scovill
    Search
  10. in Missouri, Daly v. Butchers'
    Search
  11. in Illinois, Aetna Insurance Co. v. Alton
    Search
  12. in Tennessee, Bank of Louisville v. First
    Search
  13. in Iowa, Guelich v. National
    Search
  14. and in Wisconsin, Stacy v. Dane
    Search
  15. the absence of any express or implied contract varying such liability, is established by decisions in New York, Allen v. Merchants'
    Search
  16. Bank of Orleans v. Smith
    Search
  17. Montgomery County Bank v. Albany
    Search
  18. Commercial Bank v. Union
    Search
  19. Ayrault v. Pacific
    Search
  20. in New Jersey, Titus v. Mechanics'
    Search
  21. in Pennsylvania, Wingate v. Mechanics'
    Search
  22. in Ohio, Reeves v. State
    Search
  23. and in Indiana, Tyson v. State
    Search
  24. Bank, 6 Blackford 225. It has been so held in the Second Circuit, in Kent v. Dawson
    Search
  25. Bank, 13 Blatchford 237, and the same view is supported by Taber v. Perrot
    Search
  26. Gall. 565, and by the English cases of Van Wart v. Woolley
    Search
  27. B. & C. 439, and Mackersy v. Ramsays
    Search
  28. whom and himself no privity existed. The question under consideration was not presented in Bank of Washington v. Triplett
    Search
  29. the negligence alleged was the negligence of its own officers in the place where the bank was situated. In Hoover v. Wise
    Search
  30. In the opinion of the Court it is said that the case falls within the decisions in the above-mentioned cases of Reeves v. State
    Search
  31. Mackersy v. Ramsays
    Search
  32. Bank, 11 N.Y. 203, and Allen v. Merchants'
    Search
  33. responsible for the knowledge of the attorney in Nebraska. The court then cites as a case in point Bradstreet v. Everson
    Search
  34. for the negligence Page 112 U. S. 284 of its agent at Memphis. It also cites, as to the same purport, Lewis v. Peck
    Search
  35. Ala. 142, and Cobb v. Becke
    Search
  36. plaintiff. It that be so, and the defendant is not liable, the plaintiff is without remedy. The case of Britton v. Niccolls
    Search
  37. The court then refers to the case of Allen v. Merchants'
    Search
  38. has been adopted in Ohio, it has been generally rejected in the courts of other states. The case of Dorchester Bank v. New
    Search
  39. in evidence in the courts as if the notary were a witness, and, as the courts of that state had held, Tiernan v. Commercial
    Search
  40. Agricultural Bank v. Commercial
    Search
  41. Bowling v. Arthur
    Search
  42. duties prescribed by statute, and has no application to the case at bar. No reference was made to the case of Hoover v. Wise
    Search
  43. of the liability of the defendant is to be determined on principles not involved in the actual decision in Britton v. Niccolls
    Search
  44. facts to the contrary, so that the collection of the paper cannot be regarded as a gratuitous favor. Smedes v. Bank
    Search
  45. McKinster v. Bank
    Search
  46. to all who contract to perform a service. It is illustrated by the decision of the Court of King's Bench, in Ellis v. Turner
    Search
  47. object, by whomsoever used. We regard as the proper rule of law applicable to this case, that declared in Van Wart v. Woolley
    Search
  48. is liable to the Page 112 U. S. 291 owner for all damages he has sustained by such negligence. Allen v. Suydam
    Search
  49. Walker v. Bank
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Exchange Nat'l Bank v. Third
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial