McCloskey v. North Penn Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
McCloskey v. North Penn Bank, 270 Pa. 284 (Pa. 1921)
113 A. 371; 1921 Pa. LEXIS 376
Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Sadler, Schaffer, Simpson, Walling
McCloskey v. North Penn Bank
Opinion of the Court
The judgment in this case is affirmed on the opinion of the court below; see also,Union National Bank v. Iron Co., 3 Sadler 58; Lancaster County National Bank v. Huver, 114 Pa. 216, where, at page 219 of the latter, the distinction between decisions in which the rights of third parties have intervened and those concerning the rights of the original parties; is recognized; and, as bearing on the general question here involved: Dougherty v. Bank, 93 Pa. 227, and Warner v. Hare, 154 Pa. 548.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- M. H. McCloskey, Jr., Inc. v. North Penn Bank
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Banks aná1 banking—Corporation as depositor—Recognition of corporation as distinct entity—Set-off. Where a bank accepts the deposit of a corporation, and recognizes the company as a distinct entity, and continues to treat it as such until the bank’s failure, a trust company which Succeeds to the assets of the bank cannot claim, as against the receiver of the corporation, that the corporation was the successor of the business of a partnership having an account in the bank, that such partnership owed the bank sums in excess of the deposit of the corporation, that a partner who owned a majority interest of the stock of the corporation had orally promised on behalf the corporation to pay all the obligations of the partnership, and that consequently the partnership debts to the bank should be set-off against the corporation’s deposit in the distribution of the bank’s assets.