Bank of Commerce v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 12060.,12060. |
| Citation | 164 F.2d 149 |
| Parties | BANK OF COMMERCE v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
W. W. Dykes, S. H. Dykes, and Wingate Dykes, all of Americus, Ga., and Bentley H. Chappell and Samuel E. Kelly, Jr., both of Columbus, Ga., for appellant.
Elliott Goldstein and B. D. Murphy, both of Atlanta, Ga., R. R. Jones, of Dawson, Ga., and Hyliard B. Williams, of Americus, Ga., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
This is an action for damages for a loss alleged to have resulted directly from the fraudulent conversion of designated quantities of oats, corn, peanuts, and other commodities in the custody of one Richard Frazier. It was brought by appellant, the Bank of Commerce, as obligee in a fidelity bond, against the appellee, the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, the obligor in said bond. On motion of the latter in the court below, the principal in the fidelity bond, Richard Frazier, was made a third party defendant, who would be liable to the Indemnity Company if the latter should be held liable to the original plaintiff, the Bank of Commerce.
After an extended trial on the merits, the district court gave a directed verdict for the defendant. Such verdict being rendered, judgment was entered thereon, and this appeal followed. The question presented on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to require the court below to submit the case to the jury. This depends upon whether there was substantial evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff; and, in the last analysis, this question comes down to the alleged fraudulent intent of the custodian. If the evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of such fraudulent intent, the issue should have been left to the jury; otherwise, it should not. There was evidence to warrant the jury in finding the following facts:
The Farmers Exchange, Inc., of Dawson, Georgia, managed and largely owned by J. W. Duskin, was engaged in the purchase and sale of oats, cotton, corn, peanuts, and other farm commodities. Prior to the year 1944, said Exchange had done some of its business with the Bank of Commerce of Americus, Georgia. Beginning in the season of 1944, in order to increase its line of credit with the bank and because the bank required such method of security, the Exchange made an agreement with the Bank of Commerce wherein Richard Frazier was to become the bonded custodian of the farm commodities purchased and warehoused by the Exchange, and was to issue warehouse receipts for such commodities as were to be pledged to the bank for money borrowed or to be borrowed by said Exchange from said bank.
This agreement between the parties to this litigation is evidenced by the bond sued on, the receipts signed by Frazier, and the notes of the Exchange in favor of the bank. Each note recited that there had been deposited as general collateral security for its payment certain receipts for a specified quantity of a described commodity, at a named location. Each of the receipts was signed by Farmers Exchange, Incorporated, by Richard Frazier, Custodian, and stated that the commodities described therein were to be delivered by the custodian only upon surrender of said receipt properly indorsed. The bond in suit recited that Frazier should act as custodian aforesaid, that Frazier had agreed to accept such duties, and that the obligation of the bond protected the bank and the Farmers Exchange against any direct loss from fraudulent conversion on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adelman v. CGS Scientific Corporation, Civ. A. No. 71-1658.
...category because under ordinary circumstances a Custodian merely has the care or possession of a res. Bank of Commerce v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 164 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1947). Moreover, it is possible as plaintiff argues that the appointment of a Custodian is not an event of defaul......
-
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bank of Commerce, 12364.
...the liability of Frazier and Hartford on the bond.7 No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed. 1 Bank of Commerce v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 149. 2 "1. The court erred in admitting in evidence security deeds executed by Richard Frazier to secure a pre-exis......
-
Chao v. Pinder, C.A. No. 01-007 GMS (D. Del. 1/31/2002)
...in the matter except to see that the assets are properly distributed in accordance with the plan. (See Bank of Commerce v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 164 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1947), stating "under ordinary circumstances a Custodian merely has the care or possession of a 2. Indeed, the c......
-
Graham v. Frazier
...acquire any more than the exchange had. There is nothing in the decision of the U.S. Court in Bank of Commerce v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (Richard Frazier), 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 149, Id., 5 Cir., 170 F.2d 94, adjudicating the law and the facts hereof to such an extent as to requir......