Court Opinion

ID: 9453937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:29:23.555407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:53.185418
License: Public Domain

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
. , It is true that here the bank paid ..... „ , . money m violation of a corporate resolution under arguably suspicious circumstances, but the same situation prevailed in United Milk Products Co. v. Lawndale *18National Bank of Chicago, 392 F.2d 876 (7th Cir. 1968). Since that case is factually more similar to this case and was decided subsequently to Maley v. East Side Bank of Chicago, 361 F.2d 393 (7th Cir. 1966), it is controlling and requires affirmance. Therefore, I regretfully dissent.