Bank of the Republic v. Millard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 21 district · 75 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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is an important part of the business of banking to receive deposits; but when they are received, unless there are stipulations to the contrary, they belong to the bank, become part of its general funds, and can be loaned by it as other moneys. The banker is accountable for the deposits which he receives as a debtor, and he agrees to discharge these debts by honoring the checks which the depositor shall, from time to time, draw on him. The contract between the parties is purely a legal one, and has nothing of the nature of a trust in it. This subject was fully discussed by Lords.Cottenham, Brougham, Lyndhurst, and Campbell in the House of Lords in the case of Foley v. Hill, 2 H. L. Cas. 28, and they all concurred in the opinion that the relation between a banker and customer, who pays money into the bank, or to whose credit money is placed there, is the ordinary relation of debtor and creditor, and does not partake of a fiduciary character, and the great weight of American authorities is to the same effect.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Ruskay · In Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co.

2. ““On principle, there can be no foundation for an action on the part of the holder, unless there is a privity of contract between him and the bank. How can there be such a privity when the bank owes him no duty and is under no obligation to the holder? The holder takes the'check on the credit of the drawer, in the belief that he has funds to meet it, but in no sense can the bank be said to be connected with the transaction. If it were true that there was a privity of contract betweén the banker and holder when the check was given, the bank would be obliged to pay the check, although the drawer, before it was presented, had countermanded it, and although other checks, drawn after'it was issued, but before payment of it was demanded, had exhausted the funds of the depositor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walters Nat. Bank v. Bantock

3. ““The right of the depositor is a chose in action, and his check does not transfer the debt or give a lien upon it to a third person without the assent of the depositary; .there is no privity of contract between the holder of the check and the bank or depositary, and without this there is no foundation for an action by the former against the latter.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. M. Feitel House Wrecking Co. v. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co.