Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Bank v. Partee

• 1878 • 99 U.S. 325 • Waite Court
In Bank v. Partee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could recover a debt from a third party who had received a payment from the debtor. The debtor had made a payment to the third party, who had then used the money to pay off a debt owed to the bank. The bank argued that the payment should be considered a payment to the bank, and thus the bank should be able to recover the debt from the third party. The Supreme Court held that the payment was not a...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1878
Docket: 122
99 U.S. 325
25 L. Ed. 390
1878 U.S. LEXIS 1545
Argued: Jan 10, 1879

Bank v. Partee

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Bank v. Partee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could recover a debt from a third party who had received a payment from the debtor. The debtor had made a payment to the third party, who had then used the money to pay off a debt owed to the bank. The bank argued that the payment should be considered a payment to the bank, and thus the bank should be able to recover the debt from the third party. The Supreme Court held that the payment was not a payment to the bank, and thus the bank could not recover the debt from the third party. The Court reasoned that the payment was made to the third party, and not to the bank, and thus the bank had no right to the money. The Court also noted that the third party had acted in good faith, and had not intended to defraud the bank. The Court's decision in Bank v. Partee established that a bank cannot recover a debt from a third party who has received a payment from the debtor, unless the payment was made to the bank. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has become an important precedent in the area of debt collection.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Bank v. Partee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could recover money from an individual who had received it in good faith and without knowledge that it had been wrongfully paid out by the bank. The majority opinion held that since there was no fraud or negligence on behalf of the recipient, they were not liable for repayment to the bank. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that if someone receives money under circumstances where they should know it has been wrongfully paid out by another party then they are liable for repayment even if there is no fraud or negligence involved. He argued that such a ruling would be necessary to protect banks and other financial institutions against losses due to wrongful payments made in error as well as encourage individuals receiving funds which may have been wrongfully disbursed to return them promptly so as not to benefit unjustly at another's expense.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Apr 07, 1879
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms