Burrill v. Dollar Savings Bank
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Layman v. Western Savings Bank (Pa. 1982)
- Sheeran v. First National Bank (Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas 1951)
- Kolt v. Cleveland Trust Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1950)
- Constructors' Assn. of W. Pa. v. Furman (Pa. Super. Ct. 1949)
- Bernstein v. Northwestern National Bank in Philadelphia (Pa. Super. Ct. 1944)
- Tribulas v. Continental Equitable Title & Trust Co. (Pa. 1937)
- Hardee v. George H. Price Co. (District Court, District of Columbia 1937)
- Highfield v. First National Bank (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
- Wronski v. Frankford Trust Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1924)
- Bulakowski v. Philadelphia Saving Fund Society (Pa. 1921)
- Muller v. Kelly (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania 1902)
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
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered November 24th 1879,
Savings banks like the defendant in error are really charities for the benefit of the poor. With many thousands of depositors they can only save themselves from imposition and loss by rules strictly enforced. The rule under which the defendants claim protection is a very reasonable one, and necessary for their safety. The fact that the plaintiff was illiterate, and could not read the rules in the bank book delivered to him, made no difference. He ought to have requested it to be read to him. Common prudence required this precaution. It is altogether unlike the cases of Camden and Amboy Railroad Company v. Baldauf, 4 Harris 67, and Verner v. Sweitzer, 8 Casey 208, relied on by the plaintiff in error.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.