| Kain sued the State Bank of Illinois because it failed to accept a deposit. The circuit court ruled for Kain, and the State Bank appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the receipt of Kelly, the Bank's cashier, constituted valid evidence of a deposit. The argument that Kelly lacked explicit authorization was dismissed, emphasizing that the law empowered the cashier as an agent of the institution, and the cashier's role was to receive, record, and dispense funds. |