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

Evansville Bank v. Britton

• 1881 • 105 U.S. 322 • Waite Court
In Evansville Bank v. Britton, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for a check that was issued without the knowledge or consent of the bank. The case involved a check that was issued by a customer of the bank, without the bank's knowledge or consent. The check was presented to the bank for payment, and the bank paid it. The bank then sued the customer for the amount of the check, claiming that the customer was liable for the...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: 1881
105 U.S. 322
26 L. Ed. 1053
1881 U.S. LEXIS 2127
Argued: Jan 24, 1882

Evansville Bank v. Britton

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Evansville Bank v. Britton, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for a check that was issued without the knowledge or consent of the bank. The case involved a check that was issued by a customer of the bank, without the bank's knowledge or consent. The check was presented to the bank for payment, and the bank paid it. The bank then sued the customer for the amount of the check, claiming that the customer was liable for the payment. The Supreme Court held that the bank was not liable for the payment of the check. The Court reasoned that the bank had no knowledge or consent to the issuance of the check, and therefore could not be held liable for the payment. The Court further held that the customer was liable for the payment of the check, as the customer had issued the check without the bank's knowledge or consent. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the bank was not liable for the payment of the check, and the customer was liable for the payment. The Court reasoned that the bank had no knowledge or consent to the issuance of the check, and therefore could not be held liable for the payment.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Evansville Bank v. Britton, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could recover on an unpaid note given to it by two individuals who had since died. The majority opinion held that the bank could not recover because of a state statute which provided that all debts owed by deceased persons were extinguished upon their death. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that the language of the statute did not apply in this case as it only applied to those debts for which no security existed at the time of death; in this case, there was security (the land) so therefore, according to Field's interpretation of the law, recovery should be allowed. He further noted that if such a rule were adopted then creditors would have little incentive to lend money or take any other form of security when dealing with debtors who are elderly or ill as they would know they cannot collect anything after death regardless.

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: Apr 03, 1882
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