Penn Bank v. Frankish

Unknown CourtNovember 10, 1879Cited 1 time

Plaintiff WinMedical College of Pennsylvania

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Gordon, Green, Mercur, Paxson, Sharswood, Sterrett, Trunkey
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal
State: Pennsylvania

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's grant of unemployment benefits to claimant Vivien McCarthy, holding the employer failed to properly request a continuance and the Board properly denied reconsideration.

Excerpt

Error to the Court of Common Pleas,- No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 219. Assumpsit by Joseph Frankish, trading as John McKillop & Co., against the Penn Bank. The facts were these: On the 29th of December 1875, Thomas Gray opened an account with the defendant bank, depositing then, and from time to time subsequently, money and checks on city banks. He also frequently left, for collection on his account, drafts drawn by John McKillop & Co., upon persons in Pittsburgh and the towns in its vicinity. Gray also drew checks from day to day, which were cashed and charged in his account. On the 10th of January 1876, he presented his cheek for $2300 at the bank’s counter, and obtained $100 in money and $2200 in a cashier’s check to his own order. His own check of $2300 was charged to him just as all other paid checks were. On the morning of the 12th of January a stranger came in and asked the cashier whether Thomas Gray had any, and how much, money in the bank. The cashier, Mr. Riddle, asked him by what right he made this inquiry, and was thereupon told that his questioner was Joseph Frankish and was also John McKillop & Co., of Philadelphia; that Gray was superintendent at Pittsburgh, and made collections for the firm there; that he had refused to remit or pay over the amounts collected, and was in default to a large amount. These representations induced Mr. Riddle to furnish a transcript of Gray’s account to Mr. Frankish, together with duplicates of Gray’s deposit-slips. Mr. Frankish inquired about the $2300 item, and having learned that part of it was represented by an outstanding cashier’s check, sat down and wrote and copied, and immediately served on Mr. Riddle this “notice:” • “ If the certificate were presented or simply endorsed to or by the following-named parties, viz.: Thomas Gray, J. W. Murray, W. H. Howells, I will take it as a favor to hold, for a short time, until my attorney, T. S. Parker, 158

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** In 1879, Joseph Frankish (doing business as John McKillop & Co.) sued Penn Bank over a dispute involving customer account information and financial transactions. The case centered around Thomas Gray, who had opened an account with Penn Bank in 1875 and regularly deposited money and checks. Gray also frequently left drafts (payment orders) from John McKillop & Co. for the bank to collect on his behalf. Frankish claimed the bank breached their contract, improperly disclosed account information, and wrongfully converted (took) funds that belonged to him. **What the Court Decided:** The court dismissed Frankish's case entirely. This means the court ruled against him on all his claims - breach of contract, improper disclosure of account information, and conversion. No damages were awarded to Frankish. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This 1879 case shows that disputes over financial information and business relationships between banks and their customers are not new. While employment law has evolved significantly since then, the case demonstrates the importance of clear contracts and proper handling of financial information in business relationships. Workers today benefit from much stronger legal protections regarding privacy and financial matters than existed in the 1800s.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Read Full Opinion More Medical College of Pennsylvania Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.