City of Douglas v. Federal Reserve Bank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 federal appellate · 11 district · 89 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““For when paper is indorsed without restriction by a depositor, and is at once passed to his credit by the bank to which he delivers it, he becomes the creditor of the bank; the bank becomes owner of the paper, and in making the collection is not the agent for the depositor.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ashley State Bank v. City Nat. Bank of Bismarck · Valley National Bank v. Mooreman

2. ““The county of Cochise, Arizona, on Decern-, her 22, 1920, drew its cheek on the Central Bank of Willcox, Ariz., in favor of plaintiff in error, hereafter called plaintiff. Plaintiff delivered the check indorsed in blank to the First National Bank of Douglas, Ariz., and that bank credited plaintiff’s account and passbook with the amount of the check. The passbook had printed upon its face, ‘All out of town items credited subject to final payment.’ The Douglas Bank indorsed the check, ‘Pay to the order of the El Paso Branch, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,’ which will be referred to as defendant, and forwarded it to that bank for collection. “Defendant forwarded the check, in due time, to the drawee bank at Willeox. The latter debited the drawer’s account with the amount of the check, stamped it ‘Paid,’ later returning it to the drawer, and transmitted to the defendant, in lieu of cash, its own check upon the Central Bank of Phoenix, in an amount covering this and other items. The last check was dishonored; both the Willeox Bank and the Central Bank of Phoenix having failed, the First National Bank of Douglas received no proceeds ‘of the check, and charged back the amount of it to the account of plaintiff. “Plaintiff brought suit in the District Court for Western Texas to recover the amount of the check, on the ground that defendant was negligent in accepting the check of the Willeox Bank in payment, instead of cash especially because it was chargeable with notice that both th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co.

3. ““Both plaintiff and defendant concede that it is the rule of the federal courts that a bank which receives commercial paper for collection is not only bound to use due care itself, but is responsible to its customer for a failure to collect, resulting from the negligence or insolvency of any bank to which it transmits the check for collection. This is the so-called ‘New York rule/ which in effect makes the first bank a guarantor of the solvency and diligence of the correspondents which it employs to effect the collection. Exchange Nat. Bank v. Third Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 276 , 5 S. Ct. 141 , 28 L. ed. 722. And see Federal Reserve Bank v. Malloy, 264 U. S. 160, 164 , 44 S. Ct. 296 , 68 L. ed. 617, 31 A. L. R. 1261, for a comparison of this rule of liability with the ‘Massachusetts rule’ by which the initial bank is liable only for its failure to exercise due care in the selection of an agent to make the collection. Under the Massachusetts rule the agent selected becomes the agent of the owner of the paper, who may maintain an action directly against it for the negligent performance of its undertaking. See Federal Reserve Bank v. Malloy, supra, 164 , 44 S. Ct. 296 . Compare Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Pet. 25 , 7 L. ed. 37, where the undertaking of the initial bank was to transmit paper for collection.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Osage National Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank