School District v. First National Bank
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Naltner v. Dolan (Ind. 1886)
- Chancellor v. Chancellor (Ala. 1912)
- Cannon v. Fahey (Mass. 1951)
- Wangsness v. Berdahl (S.D. 1944)
- Banks v. Everett National Bank (Mass. 1940)
- Chapter House Circle of the King's Daughters v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. (Conn. 1936)
- Agard v. Peoples National Bank of Shakopee (Minn. 1927)
- Hungerford v. Curtis (Superior Court of Rhode Island 1917)
- Shotwell v. Sioux Falls Savings Bank (S.D. 1914)
- McLennan v. Farmers' Savings Bank (Iowa 1906)
- Dirks v. Juel (Neb. 1899)
- Smith v. Des Moines National Bank (Iowa 1899)
- Spaulding v. Kendrick (Mass. 1898)
- Henry v. Allen (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- Hatch v. Fourth Nat. Bank (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- Independent District v. King (Iowa 1890)
- Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian Orchard Mills (Mass. 1888)
- Hatch v. Stewart (New York Supreme Court 1886)
- Long v. Emsley (Iowa 1881)
- Lowry v. Polk County (Iowa 1879)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
When Tyler deposited in the bank the money which he held as treasurer of the school district, and caused it to be credited to his private account, without giving any notice that it was not his private property, or making any special agreement in respect to it, he thereby converted it to his own use. The specific money became the property of the bank, which they might apply to the payment of any money that he then owed them on account, and for the balance of which they would be his debtors. By giving him credit for it, the sum of $3.57, for which his account had been overdrawn, was paid, and the balance stood to his credit. If it might have been inferred, from the fact of his drawing his check, as treasurer, for a like amount with that deposited, aided by any other facts stated in the report, that the bank had notice that it was the money of the plaintiffs, yet the contrary inference might legally be drawn from all the facts stated; and the finding of the judge shows that it was not proved to his satisfaction that 'they had such notice at any time before Tyler went into insolvency and the defendants’ note became due. After that, they had a right to appropriate the money as they did. The findings as to matters of fact are not subject to exception.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.