Craig v. Bank of Granby

Citation238 S.W. 507,210 Mo. App. 334
Decision Date11 March 1922
Docket NumberNo. 3025.,3025.
PartiesCRAIG v. BANK OF GRANBY.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; Chas. L. Henson, Judge.

Action by Clarence Craig, as trustee in bankruptcy of the Margaret D Mining Company, against the Bank of Granby. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Owen & Davis, of Joplin, for appellant.

C. C. Spencer and A. B. Spencer, both of Joplin, for respondent.

COX, P. J.

Action by trustee in bankruptcy to recover money claimed to have been deposited in defendant bank as a special deposit for a specific purpose. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial filed by defendant, and sustained. Plaintiff has appealed.

The mining company had made a deposit of $1,000, and the bank had applied this amount on a note it held against the depositor. Plaintiff contends that the deposit was a special deposit, made for the purpose of meeting checks already issued to employees, and hence the bank could not apply it to another purpose. The question at issue in the trial was whether this was a general or a special deposit. If it were a general deposit, then there could be no doubt as to the right of the bank to apply it on the note of the depositor, but if it were a special deposit, then it could not do so.

For several years prior to May 22, 1920, the Margaret D Mining Company had been making deposits in the Bank of Granby and paying the money out on checks. The nay roll of the mining company was made up twice a month, and a check then issued to each employee for the amount of wages due him. Checks of that character were issued by the raining company on May 21, 1920. At that time the company did not have enough money in the bank to meet these checks. The testimony further tended to show that on May 22, 1920, Mr. H. B. Little, the manager of the mining company, went to the bank and inquired about the state of the account of the company, and was informed that it was in bad shape. He then stated to Mr. Davis, the assistant cashier, that he would make a deposit in the afternoon of that day to meet the pay roll. He also advised Mr. Davis that the checks to pay the parties to whom money was due had been issued the day before, and asked him to take care of any that might come in before as returned, and Mr. Davis said he would do so; that a deposit of $1,000 was made at about 4:10 P. M. of that day. This money was deposited to the credit of the company in the same way that all other previous deposits had been made. Mr. Little, who made the deposit, made out a deposit slip at the time, and that showed "Checks as follows: $1000.00." This was the form used by depositors in making a general deposit. There was nothing in the deposit slip and nothing in the conversation at the time the deposit was made to indicate that this deposit was to be a special deposit for the specific purpose of meeting checks issued to employees the day before. Mr. Little stated that when he went into the bank to make this deposit he asked Mr. Davis if any of the boys had been in to receive their pay, and he replied that they had not. This was all that was said at that time. After this deposit was made the officers of the bank applied it on a note the bank held against the mining company, and, when the checks that had been issued to employees of the company were afterward presented, their payment was refused.

The plaintiff relied on the conversation between Mr. Little and Mr. Davis at the time that Mr. Little was in the bank, and told Mr. Davis that he would make a deposit in the afternoon to meet the pay roll checks, as establishing the character of the deposit. Mr. Davis denied having this conversation with Mr. Little, but with that we are not now concerned. The pay roll checks amounted to $873.36. It was also shown that the mining company had been adjudged a bankrupt. Defendant demurred to the testimony at the close of plaintiff's case, and at the close of the whole case. These were overruled.

After a verdict in plaintiff's favor, the defendant filed a motion for new trial, which the court sustained on the ground that the instruction given was erroneous. The instruction given by the court is as follows:

"The court instructs the jury that, if they find and believe from the evidence in the case that on or about the 22d day of May, 1920, the Margaret D Mining Company deposited with defendant bank the sum of $1,000 for the purpose of paying checks issued by it in payment of its pay roll, and that the defendant bank accepted said deposit for such purpose, then you will find the issues for the plaintiff, and will assess his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Security Nat. Bank Sav. & Trust Co. v. Moberly
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1936
    ... ... Mo. Trust Co., 39 S.W.2d 415; Ellington v ... Cantley, 300 S.W. 529; Nichols v. Bank of ... Syracuse, 220 Mo.App. 1019; Craig v. Bank of ... Granby, 210 Mo.App. 335; Butcher v. Butler, 134 ... Mo.App. 61; People v. Nelson, 170 N.E. 205; ... Buscher v. Fulton, 191 ... ...
  • Robison v. Chicago & E. I. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1933
  • Howard County v. Fayette Bank
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1941
    ... ... Langhorst v. Rosebud Bank, 78 S.W.2d 121; ... McPheeters v. Scott County Bank, 63 S.W.2d 460; ... In re North Mo. Trust Co., 39 S.W.2d 412; Craig ... v. Bank of Granby, 238 S.W. 507. (2) A rigid and literal ... compliance with the depository law is not indispensable to ... the validity of ... ...
  • City of Fulton v. Home Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1934
    ... ... R. S. 1929; Compton Co. v. Farmers Trust Co., 279 ... S.W. 746, 220 Mo.App. 1081; Hunter's Bank of New ... Madrid v. City of New Madrid, 224 Mo.App. 550, 30 S.W.2d ... 782; Macon v. Farmers ... App.), 300 S.W. 529; Nichols v. Bank of ... Syracuse, 220 Mo.App. 1019, 278 S.W. 793; Craig, ... Trustee, v. Bank of Granby, 210 Mo.App. 334, 238 S.W ... 507; and Butcher v. Butler, 134 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT