TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morris & Bailey Steel Co. v. Bank of Pittsburgh National Ass'n

Morris & Bailey Steel Co. v. Bank of Pittsburgh National Association, Appellant

Morris & Bailey Steel Co. v. Bank of Pittsburgh Nat'l Ass'n, 129 A. 53 (Pa. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 19, 1925
Docket
Nos. , 33
Judges
Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler
Citations
129 A. 53283 Pa. 2031925 Pa. LEXIS 373

Opinion of the Court — Sadler

Opinion by Mr. Justice Sadler, Defendant appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff for a sum alleged to be due as a result of issuance of certain certified checks, drawn to its order, and to which its name was fraudulently endorsed, and placed to the credit of one Leder, an agent of Schwarz, who carried on a collection agency in the City of Pittsburgh. The facts surrounding the transaction are disclosed by the immediately preceding case reported, in which Schwarz was the plaintiff, and by the opinion previously rendered by this court, in which a judgment for defendant, based on a statutory demurrer, was reversed:

*205 Morris & Bailey Steel Co. v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 277 Pa. 81 .

The obligations, forming the basis of the present suit, were drawn to the order of the plaintiff, and illegally signed by Leder, agent of Schwarz, and deposited to the personal account of the former in the Potter Title & Trust Company, and, in due course of business, cashed. He had no authority to so act, and to appropriate the proceeds to his own use. But one defense could possibly be interposed here, as previously indicated in the opinion of this court. If there was negligence in giving notice of the forgery, the defendant, if injured thereby, had the right to complain. The record, however, discloses that the bank knew of the wrongful act of Leder, at least as soon, if not sooner, than the plaintiff. It cannot be said that it was prejudiced by any act on the part of the Morris & Bailey Steel Company.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clearfield National Bank v. Madera National Bank87 Pa. Super. 564 (1925)

Most recent

  1. Clearfield National Bank v. Madera National Bank87 Pa. Super. 564 (1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Morris & Bailey Steel Co. v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 120 A. 698 (Pa. 1923) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list