Second Nat. Bank v. Campbell
Citations
- 26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 270
- 21 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 305
Syllabus
<p>BANKS AND BANKING.</p> <p>Bank Negligent in Executing Draft Raised to Larger Amount Without Exciting Suspicion.</p> <p>Whether a draft which had been “raised” and was accepted for the larger amount, had been so negligently drawn as to make the issuing bank liable for the full amount by reason of the fact that the alteration was possible without exciting the suspicion of a reasonably careful man, is a question for the jury, and an unequivocal finding as to such negligence will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that it was “undisputed that at the time the complaint was filed in the court, the deferred tax ... was not paid”
- citing, inter alia, Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958), aff'd on reh’g, 362 U.S. 145, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960); Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993-94 (Fed.Cir.1991)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Jones, Swing
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.