54 S.E. 206 (S.C. 1906), Lorick v. Palmetto Bank & Trust Co.

Citation54 S.E. 206, 74 S.C. 185
Opinion JudgePOPE, C.J.
Party NameLORICK v. PALMETTO BANK & TRUST CO.
AttorneyFrank G. Tompkins, for appellant. Weston & Aycock, for respondent.
Case DateApril 14, 1906
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

Page 206

54 S.E. 206 (S.C. 1906)

74 S.C. 185

LORICK

v.

PALMETTO BANK & TRUST CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 14, 1906

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Purdy, Judge.

Action by Blanche O. Lorick against the Palmetto Bank & Trust Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Frank G. Tompkins, for appellant. Weston & Aycock, for respondent.

POPE, C.J.

This action was commenced on the 15th day of September, 1903. It came on for trial before Judge Purdy and a jury, on the 28th of November, 1904. Its object was the recovery of $1,000 damages. After hearing the testimony and argument of counsel and the circuit judge's charge, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. After judgment an appeal was taken to this court.

The admitted facts are that the plaintiff on the 14th of March, 1903, deposited with the defendant bank the sum of $313.75, to be paid out on the check of the plaintiff during banking hours of the defendant. On the 2d day of July, 1903, she issued to one H. R. Harris or bearer a check on the defendant bank for the sum of $13.75; the defendant informed the holder of the check that the plaintiff had funds in its bank to her credit sufficient to pay said check, but that the same were in the savings department of said bank, the rules of which required that all checks presented for payment should be accompanied by the bank's passbook, and thereupon [74 S.C. 187] the holder of the check left the bank. Then on Monday succeeding the day on which the said check was first presented the check was again presented for payment, which was again declined for the reason before given. It was found that the bank made a mistake, for the funds of the plaintiff were not deposited in the savings department of the bank, but were really subject to the check of the plaintiff, and that this fact was discovered by the bank when the plaintiff presented her book of deposit; that then the bank offered to pay the check, but plaintiff declined to receive the money. On the afternoon of that day, Monday, the bank, through one of its officials, tendered the money to the attorney of the plaintiff, which was decided, with information that suit would be brought. The defendant admitted that its books showed that plaintiff had on deposit subject to her credit the sum of $213.75, and that said books of the bank were easily...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • 129 So. 74 (Ala. 1930), 6 Div. 466, Macrum v. Security Trust & Savings Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 10, 1930
    ...222 S.W. 40; McFall v. First Nat. Bank, 138 Ark. 370, 211 S.W. 919 4 A. L. R. 940; Lorick v. Palmetto Bank & Trust Co., 74 S.C. 185, 54 S.E. 206, 7 Ann. Cas. 818; Svendsen v. State Bank of Duluth, 64 Minn. 40, 65 N.W. 1086, 31 L. R. A. 552, 58 Am. St. Rep. 522; State Bank v. Marshall, 1......
  • 18 Cal.App. 5, Civ. 884, Siminoff v. Jas. H. Goodman &Amp; Co. Bank, A Corporation
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1912
    ...294, 28 L. R. A. 72, 62 N.W. 1] .) And so it was held, Page 18 in Lorick v. Palmetto Bank & T. Co., 74 S.C. 185, [7 Ann. Cas. 818, 54 S.E. 206]: " The liability of a bank to its depositor for substantial damages, temperate in amount, for refusing to pay his check, not exceeding his......
  • 727 F.Supp. 980 (D.Md. 1989), Civ. A. HAR 89-1309, Ottenritter v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • November 6, 1989
    ..." 'in controversies based on statutes.' " 473 U.S., at 626-627 [105 S.Ct. at 3353-54], quoting Wilko v. Swan, supra, at 432 [74 S.Ct. at 185]. Absent a well-founded claim that an arbitration agreement resulted from the sort of fraud or excessive economic power that "would pro......
  • 794 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1986), 85-6082, Conover v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • July 17, 1986
    ...Dealers are as likely to "maneuver buyers into a position that might weaken their ability to recover," Wilko, 346 U.S. at 432, 74 S.Ct. at 185, under the 1934 Act as they are under the 1933 Act. In Weissbuch, 558 F.2d at 835, the Seventh Circuit examined buyers' disadvantages in p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • 129 So. 74 (Ala. 1930), 6 Div. 466, Macrum v. Security Trust & Savings Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 10, 1930
    ...222 S.W. 40; McFall v. First Nat. Bank, 138 Ark. 370, 211 S.W. 919 4 A. L. R. 940; Lorick v. Palmetto Bank & Trust Co., 74 S.C. 185, 54 S.E. 206, 7 Ann. Cas. 818; Svendsen v. State Bank of Duluth, 64 Minn. 40, 65 N.W. 1086, 31 L. R. A. 552, 58 Am. St. Rep. 522; State Bank v. Marshall, 1......
  • 18 Cal.App. 5, Civ. 884, Siminoff v. Jas. H. Goodman &Amp; Co. Bank, A Corporation
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1912
    ...294, 28 L. R. A. 72, 62 N.W. 1] .) And so it was held, Page 18 in Lorick v. Palmetto Bank & T. Co., 74 S.C. 185, [7 Ann. Cas. 818, 54 S.E. 206]: " The liability of a bank to its depositor for substantial damages, temperate in amount, for refusing to pay his check, not exceeding his......
  • 727 F.Supp. 980 (D.Md. 1989), Civ. A. HAR 89-1309, Ottenritter v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • November 6, 1989
    ..." 'in controversies based on statutes.' " 473 U.S., at 626-627 [105 S.Ct. at 3353-54], quoting Wilko v. Swan, supra, at 432 [74 S.Ct. at 185]. Absent a well-founded claim that an arbitration agreement resulted from the sort of fraud or excessive economic power that "would pro......
  • 794 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1986), 85-6082, Conover v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • July 17, 1986
    ...Dealers are as likely to "maneuver buyers into a position that might weaken their ability to recover," Wilko, 346 U.S. at 432, 74 S.Ct. at 185, under the 1934 Act as they are under the 1933 Act. In Weissbuch, 558 F.2d at 835, the Seventh Circuit examined buyers' disadvantages in p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results