United States v. Central Nat Bank of Philadelphia

Decision Date07 February 1881
PartiesUNITED STATES v. THE CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK OF PHILADELPHIA. [*]
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

John K. Valentine, U.S. Dist. Att'y, for plaintiff.

Edward L. Perkins, for defendant.

BUTLER, D.J.

Judgment must be entered for the defendant on the reserved points. The case is ruled by the U.S. v. Cooke, decided in this court in 1872: 9 Phila.Reps. 468. [*] I do not find any case inconsistent with this, unless it be the U.S. v. The Second Nat. Bank of Jersey City,, decided in the New Jersey district in 1872. That case involved the point. The question does not appear to have been pressed, however, by counsel, or considered by the court. No good reason can be assigned for relieving the government, when dealing with commercial paper, from observance of the rules respecting vigilance, which are enforced against individuals; that this view is entertained by the supreme court, is plainly indicated by the case of Cooke, v. U.S. 91 U.S. 397

---------

Notes:

[*] Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

[*] This case was argued before the late Judge Cadwalader, and the opinion delivered by him, but it was understood that McKennan, C.J., concurred therein.

---------

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Common School Dist. No. 61 in Twin Falls County v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1931
    ... ... appellant and may not now recover the payment. (United ... States v. Bank of New York, etc., 219 F. 648; Bank ... of United ... Abramson, 57 Ark. 142, 20 S.W. 1084; ... United States v. Central Nat. Bank of Philadelphia, ... 6 F. 134; United States v. Clinton Nat: ... ...
  • United States v. National City Bank of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 Enero 1939
    ...1371. The first of these two propositions was decided in Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 23 L.Ed. 237. See, also, United States v. Central National Bank D.C., 6 F. 134. The second seems to be sustained by the common voice of the authorities. See, in addition to 2 Daniel, Neg.Inst. cited......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT