If a fiduciary makes a deposit in a bank to his personal credit of checks drawn by him upon an account in his own name as fiduciary, or of checks payable to him as fiduciary, or of checks drawn by him upon an account in the name of his principal if he is empowered to draw checks thereon, or of checks payable to his principal and indorsed by him, if he is empowered to indorse such checks, or if he otherwise makes a deposit of funds held by him as fiduciary, the bank receiving such deposit is not bound to inquire whether the fiduciary is committing thereby a breach of his obligation as fiduciary; and the bank is authorized to pay the amount of the deposit or any part thereof upon the personal check of the fiduciary without being liable to the principal unless the bank receives the deposit or pays the check with actual knowledge that the fiduciary is committing a breach of his obligation as fiduciary in making such deposit or in drawing such check, or with knowledge of such facts that its action in receiving the deposit or paying the check amounts to bad faith.
(Acts 1943, No. 557, p. 544, §9.)
Notes of Decisions
Southland Health Servs., Inc. v. Bank of Vernon, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Ala.Code § 19-1-9. Thus, even if the UFA does provide Plaintiffs a cause of action, it also requires Citizens to have had “actual knowledge” that the individual defendants were committing a breach of their fiduciary duties, or else knowledge of facts rendering its aid an act of…”
Springfield Twp. v. Mellon PSFS Bank, 889 A.2d 1184 (Pa. 2005).
· cites it 2× “1988) (grant of summary judgment affirmed where no evidence of bad faith under UFA § 9, Ala. Code § 19-1-9 was shown on part of bank); Arvada Hardwood Floor Co.”
Brooks ex rel. Vickers v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Sylacauga, 726 So. 2d 640 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 22× “Brooks to withdraw funds from the trust, First Federal did not act in bad faith — bad faith being a requirement the Brookses must prove to hold the bank liable under §§ 19-1-9 and -10, Ala.Code 1975. In their second motion, the Brookses asked the trial court to rule that the…”
Brooks v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 726 So. 2d 640 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 26× “I respectfully dissent, however, from that portion of the main opinion that holds that First Federal's allegedly wrongful acts are not within the purview of Ala.Code 1975, § 19-1-9. Section 19-1-9 reads as follows: "If a fiduciary makes a deposit in a bank to his personal credit…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.