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

Penn Bank v. Furness & Others

• 1884 • 114 U.S. 376 • Waite Court
Penn Bank v. Furness & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for the negligence of its employees. The case arose when the plaintiff, Penn Bank, was sued by the defendants, Furness & Others, for negligence in the handling of their funds. The defendants alleged that the bank had failed to properly supervise its employees, resulting in the misappropriation of funds. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable...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: 1884
Docket: 221
114 U.S. 376
5 S. Ct. 900
29 L. Ed. 168
1885 U.S. LEXIS 1770
Argued: Apr 01, 1885

Penn Bank v. Furness & Others

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Penn Bank v. Furness & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for the negligence of its employees. The case arose when the plaintiff, Penn Bank, was sued by the defendants, Furness & Others, for negligence in the handling of their funds. The defendants alleged that the bank had failed to properly supervise its employees, resulting in the misappropriation of funds. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the negligence of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of its employees, and that it had failed to do so. The Court also noted that the bank had a duty to act in good faith and with due care in the handling of its customers' funds. The Court's decision established that banks can be held liable for the negligence of their employees, and that they must exercise reasonable care in the supervision of their employees. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has become an important precedent in the area of banking law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Penn Bank v. Furness & Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out on a check that had been fraudulently altered by an employee of the bank. The majority opinion found in favor of the defendants and ruled that banks are not responsible for such losses due to their lack of knowledge or control over fraudulent activities committed by employees. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that banks should be held accountable when they fail to exercise reasonable care in preventing frauds perpetrated against them by their own employees. He reasoned that if banks were allowed to escape liability simply because they did not know about any wrongdoing then it would create an incentive for them to turn a blind eye towards potential criminal activity within their ranks instead of taking steps necessary to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Apr 13, 1885
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