Court Opinion

ID: 9642266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:53:15.421608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:45.326073
License: Public Domain

DAWKINS, District Judge
(concurring)
. I concur in the decree in this case, for the reason that I think the bank aided and facilitated the sheriff in misappropriating the tax funds by cashing checks drawn upon another account as sheriff, both by himself and the members of his family, upon oral instructions to do so. On the other hand, I do not think that, a bank should he held liable merely because of knowledge on the part of one or more of its employees that checks drawn in proper form, that is, signed in the manner agreed upon when the deposit was made, were actually being given for private purposes of the depositor. In other words, I do not believe it was any of the bank’s business, and it did not have to inquire or act in the matter one way or the other so long as the cheeks were correctly drawn, for there was no privity between the bank and the beneficiary of the trust. It simply owed the duty not to participate in or facilitate the commission of a fraud by the tax collector. The banking business would be seriously handicapped, if courts should hold that such institutions had to censor the cheeks of their thousands of customers who deposit money in a representative or fiduciary capacity.