Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 12 district · 44 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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““All deposits made -with bankers may be divided into two classes, namely, tliose in which the hank becomes bailee of the depositor, the title to the thing' deposited remaining with the latter: and that other kind of deposit of money peculiar to hanking business, in which the depositor, for his own convenience, parts with the title to his money, and loans it to the banker. And the latter, in consideration of the loan of the money and the right to use it for his own profit, agrees to refund the same amount, or any part thereof, on demand. Tho case before us is not of the former class. It must be of the latter.””

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phœnix Bank v. Risley · Merchants' Nat. Bank v. School Dist. No. 8

2. ““The counsel'have argued as to the effect of mixing the money of plaintiff with that of defendant. In the view we take of the matter, there was no such admixture. It being understood between the parties that, when the money was received, it was to be held as an ordinary bank deposit, it became by virtue of that understanding the money of the defendant the moment it was received. * * * “If we are correct in these views, it would seem that the relation of principal and agent was changed the moment the money received was placed in the general fund of the bank, and the plaintiff credited on its book with the amount. * * * “If the Marine Bank had thus received depreciated money, and kept it without using it until called, for, or had sent it by express to plaintiff, it would have been relieved from further liability. In other words, as long as the defendant retained strictly the character of agent, and acted within the principle laid down in the circular, it was protected. But, as we have already shown, the defendant changed that relation by using the money as its own, and became the debtor of the plaintiff for the sum collected.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 F. Supp. 206 - In Re Fergusson Drug Co.