First National Bank of Chicago v. Standard Bank & Trust
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
172 F.3d 472 (1999)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
On November 18, 1993, a person deposited checks for around $4,000,000 at First National Bank of Chicago (First National) (plaintiff). The checks were drawn on accounts at Standard Bank & Trust (Standard Bank) (defendant). On the same day, that person also deposited at Standard Bank checks for around $4,000,000 that were drawn on accounts at First National. Both banks presented the checks to each other on November 19. On November 22, the next business day following presentment, First National returned to Standard Bank all of the checks that First National had received. Standard Bank received notice of First National’s actions on November 23 and, that afternoon, sent three bank officers in person to First National’s processing center with the checks that Standard Bank had received. First National refused to credit Standard Bank for the amount of the returned checks. First National sued Standard Bank, seeking a declaratory judgment that Standard Bank had failed to return the checks in a timely manner. Standard Bank counterclaimed for prejudgment interest. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Standard Bank and awarded prejudgment interest to Standard Bank. Both banks appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
