12 U.S.C. § 360

Receiving checks and drafts on deposit at par; charges for collections, exchange, and clearances

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

Every Federal reserve bank shall receive on deposit at par from depository institutions or from Federal reserve banks checks and other items, including negotiable orders of withdrawal and share drafts and drafts drawn upon any of its depositors, and when remitted by a Federal reserve bank, checks and other items, including negotiable orders of withdrawal and share drafts and drafts drawn by any depositor in any other Federal reserve bank or depository institution upon funds to the credit of said depositor in said reserve bank or depository institution. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as prohibiting a depository institution from charging its actual expense incurred in collecting and remitting funds, or for exchange sold to its patrons. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall, by rule, fix the charges to be collected by the depository institutions from its patrons whose checks and other items, including negotiable orders of withdrawal and share drafts are cleared through the Federal reserve bank and the charge which may be imposed for the service of clearing or collection rendered by the Federal reserve bank.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1981–2012 · leading case: Northpark National Bank v. Bankers Trust Co.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Northpark National Bank v. Bankers Trust Co. (1983) nysd · cites it 3× “For the latter proposition the FRBNY refers us to 12 U.S.C. § 360 and 5 Fed.Res.Bull. 467 (1919) (Exhibit F to Defendant’s Reply Memorandum).”

Fasano v. Federal Reserve Bank (2006) ca3 “12 U.S.C. § 360 . The individual Federal Reserve Banks serve as the foundation for the Federal Reserve System.”

Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc. (2012) nysd “12 U.S.C. § 360 (c) Plaintiffs also bring a claim against Abba under 42 U.”

Northbrook Trust & Savings Bank v. PALOS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (1981) ilnd “Northbrook Bank’s position on the ultimate merits is untenable as a matter of substantive law, while Reserve Bank’s position on its motion is equally untenable as a procedural matter. As for Northbrook Bank, there is no question that: (1) Federal law restricts liability of a…”

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.