Levy v. Bank of United States
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.
- First National Bank of Portland v. Noble (Or. 1946)
- Batson v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. (Ala. 1941)
- Railway Express Agency v. Bank of Philadelphia (Miss. 1933)
- Snyder v. Hamilton National Bank (Colo. 1918)
- Taft v. Guardian Trust Co. (City of Cleveland Municipal Court 1934)
- School District v. Cook (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927)
- Broad & Market National Bank v. New York & Eastern Realty Co. (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1917)
- Farmers National Bank v. Farmers & Traders Bank (Ky. Ct. App. 1914)
- Bierce v. State Nat. Bank of Memphis, Tenn. (Okla. 1912)
- Citizens Bank v. Schwarzschild & Sultzberger Co. (Va. 1909)
- Bryan v. First National Bank (Pa. 1903)
- Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Bingham (Wash. 1902)
- First National Bank v. First National Bank (Ohio 1898)
- Riverside Bank v. First Nat. Bank of Shenandoah (2d Cir. 1896)
- First National Bank v. First National Bank (Ind. Ct. App. 1892)
- City National Bank v. Burns (Ala. 1880)
- National Park Bank v. Ninth National Bank (New York Supreme Court 1869)
- National Park Bank v. Fourth National Bank (New York Court of Common Pleas 1869)
- Ellis & Morton v. Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co. (Ohio 1855)
- Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany (New York Supreme Court 1841)
- Starr v. Carrington (Conn. 1820)
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
Levy
versus
The Bank of the United States.
Supreme Court of United States.
*236 Ingersoll, E. Tilghman, M`Kean, and Dallas, for the plaintiff.
Rawle, and Lewis, for the defendants.
The COURT delivered a charge to the jury decidedly in favour of the plaintiff; the Chief Justice declaring, that he thought any attempt to distinguish between a credit in the bank book of a customer, and an actual cash payment, as impolitic on the part of the bank, as it was unjust towards the individual, who accepted the credit, instead of his money.
The verdict found for the plaintiff the sum demanded, and interest: and (after an ineffectual motion for a new trial, as above stated) a judgment was rendered upon the verdict, which was affirmed upon a writ of error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.