Maryland Casualty Company v. Bank of Charlotte

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming that \where a bank had both reason to suspect a misappropriation by the fiduciary and a monetary interest in the continuance of such activity\ dishonesty under the UFA is evidenced
• affirming that \where a bank had both reason to suspect a misappropriation by the fiduciary and a monetary interest in the continuance of such activity\ dishonesty under the UFA is evidenced
• affirming that \where a bank had both reason to suspect a misappropriation by the fiduciary and a monetary interest in the continuance of such activity\ dishonesty under the UFA is evidenced
• “At common law a [bank] was often held liable to the principal if it negligently assisted a fiduciary in misappropriating the principal’s funds.”
• “The Uniform Fiduciaries Act did away with the [banks]’s liability for negligence and substituted a new test. For the [bank] to become liable under this Act it must be found either that it had actual knowledge of the misappropriation or that it acted in bad faith.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).