Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie
Citations
- 137 U.S. 411
- 11 S. Ct. 118
- 34 L. Ed. 724
- 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2101
Syllabus
<p>A bank, receiving on deposit from a factor, under the circumstances set forth in this case, moneys which it must have known were the proceeds of property of the factor’s principal, consigned to him by the principal for sale on the principal’s account, of which moneys the principal was the beneficial owner, cannot, as against the latter, appropriate the deposits to the payment of a general balance due to the bank fropi the factor; and. if it attempts to do so, the remedy of the principal against the bank is in equity and not at law.</p> <p>Chapman v. Forsyth, 2 How. 202, and Hennequin v. Clews, 111 U. S. 676, distinguished from this case.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- circumstances that distinguish deposit bar bank from treating it as property of depositor
- “It cannot be doubted that an element of a fiduciary nature enters into the obligation of the factor.... [T]here is a reliance of a principal on his agent, a confidence that the agent will do as his principal directs, and be loyal to the duties springing from such relation.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brewer
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.