{
  "id": 435550,
  "name": "The President and Directors of the State Bank, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Kain, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "President of the State Bank v. Kain",
  "decision_date": "1823-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "75",
  "last_page": "76",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Breese 75"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. 75"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Wheat., 338",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wheat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1796,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37951536942887404
    },
    "sha256": "19a6629cd0d7a80d5212389ae7878f0bda26e7cfc1f080149d1bf5de705eb775",
    "simhash": "1:0bb10c779b3ee6b7",
    "word_count": 328
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:48.520166+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The President and Directors of the State Bank, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Kain, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court by\nJustice Wilson.\nThe only question presented in this case for the opinion of the court is\u2014 whether the receipt of Kelly, the cashier of the Bank, is evidence of a deposit in the Bank. It is said that it is not, because lie was not authorized by the letter of the law, nor by any order of the Board of Directors of the Bank, to receive money on deposit. It is conceded that he might receive state paper on deposit, but not gold or silver, because the language of the law is, that \u201cthe Bank shall at all times receive money on deposit,\u201d &c. The word Bank is not made use of here to designate the house, the cashier, or the directors, but the institution generally; and the cashier is the officer or agent of the institution, with authority derived from the law, and the nature of this, as well as of every other Bank is, to receive money on deposit, receipt for the same, enter it upon the books of the Bank, and pay it out again when called for, without compensation. Tho question whether the directors can control the cashier is not involved in this case. From this view of the case, the court is of opinion that the judgment below ought to be affirmed,\nBlackwell, for plaintiffs.\nKane and McRoberts, for defendant.\nJudgment affirmed,.\nThe acts of a cashier of a Bank, done in the ordinary course of the business actually confided to such an officer, are prima facia evidence that they were within the scope of his duty. Fleckner v. Bank of United States, 3 Wheat., 338.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Justice Wilson."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blackwell, for plaintiffs.",
      "Kane and McRoberts, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The President and Directors of the State Bank, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Kain, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO FAYETTE.\nTho receipt of the cashier of the State Bank, for money received of an-individual, is evidence of a deposit by that individual, and the cashier had a right to receive such deposits."
  },
  "file_name": "0075-01",
  "first_page_order": 75,
  "last_page_order": 76
}