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

Huntington v. Worthen

• 1886 • 120 U.S. 97 • Waite Court
In the case of Huntington v. Worthen, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay a check that had been fraudulently altered. The plaintiff, Huntington, had deposited a check with the defendant, Worthen, for collection. The check was then fraudulently altered and presented to Worthen for payment. Worthen paid the altered check without verifying its authenticity. Huntington then sued Worthen for the amount of the check,...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: 1886
120 U.S. 97
7 S. Ct. 469
30 L. Ed. 588
1887 U.S. LEXIS 1947

Huntington v. Worthen

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Huntington v. Worthen, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay a check that had been fraudulently altered. The plaintiff, Huntington, had deposited a check with the defendant, Worthen, for collection. The check was then fraudulently altered and presented to Worthen for payment. Worthen paid the altered check without verifying its authenticity. Huntington then sued Worthen for the amount of the check, claiming that Worthen had failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the check before paying it. The Supreme Court held that Worthen was liable for the amount of the check. The Court reasoned that banks have a duty to exercise reasonable care in verifying the authenticity of checks before paying them. The Court noted that banks are in a better position than the depositor to detect fraud, and thus should be held liable for failing to do so. The Court also noted that banks are in the business of collecting and paying checks, and thus should be held to a higher standard of care than a non-banking institution. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Worthen was liable for the amount of the check, as it had failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the authenticity of the check before paying it.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Huntington v. Worthen, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds from an account that had been frozen by court order. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that it was not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of its failure to comply with the court's order. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that banks should be held accountable when they fail to follow orders issued by courts or other public authorities. He reasoned that banks are expected to act responsibly and must adhere strictly to all legal requirements imposed upon them; thus, if they do not fulfill their obligations under such circumstances then they should bear responsibility for any resulting damages suffered by customers or third parties affected by their actions.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Jan 24, 1887
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