American Nat. Bank v. Williams

• Decision Date: 16 April 1900
• Docket Number: 1,321.
• Citation: 101 F. 943
• Parties: AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF ARKANSAS CITY, KAN., et al. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

101 F. 943

AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF ARKANSAS CITY, KAN., et al. v. WILLIAMS.

No. 1,321.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 16, 1900

Samuel R. Peters (John C. Nicholson, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

R. R Vermilion (W. E. Stanley, Earle W. Evans, J. C. Pollack, and J. T. Lafferty, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge.

This case was before this court at the December term, 1897, a writ of error having been sued out previously by Lizzie E Williams, the present defendant in error, to reverse a judgment that was recovered against her on the first trial by the receiver of the American National Bank of Arkansas City one of the present plaintiffs in error. Williams v Bank, 56 U.S.App. 316, 29 C.C.A. 203, 85 F. 376. The first judgment having been reversed on the former hearing, a second trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict against the American National Bank of Arkansas City and its receiver, John Watts, the present plaintiffs in error, in the sum of $42,586.83, to reverse which a second writ of error has been brought.

As the facts out of which the case arises are fully reported in the case above cited, we only deem it necessary to say on the present occasion that Mrs. Williams, who was the plaintiff below, sued the American National Bank of Arkansas City and its receiver, the bank having become insolvent, to recover the sum of $28,250, which she claimed to have loaned to the bank on April 15, 1890, while it was a going concern. The receiver denied that any such loan had ever been made to the bank, and insisted that the sum of money sued for was paid by the plaintiff below to the bank, on or about the time stated in her complaint, for the purchase of 250 shares of the capital stock of the bank, and that she had ever since remained a stockholder of the bank, holding stock to that amount. The issue which appears to have been litigated on the second trial, as on the first trial, was whether the sum of money last mentioned was loaned to the bank at an agreed rate of interest of 12 per cent. per annum, and a certificate of stock taken as collateral security for the same, as the plaintiff claimed, or whether she was a purchaser of the bank's stock to the amount of 250 shares, as the receiver claimed. Upon this issue the finding on the second trial was in favor of the plaintiff, as heretofore stated.

In view of our former decision, which disposed of several questions that were then raised, only two questions are presented by the present record which we deem it necessary to notice. The first is whether the jury were properly allowed to determine the issue of fact heretofore stated; and the second is whether the plaintiff below, on the state of facts which was developed at the trial, should have been held to be estopped from denying that she was a stockholder in the insolvent bank.

The first of these questions is practically answered by our previous decision. When the case was heard formerly, we held in substance, that upon the evidence contained in that record the case should have gone to the jury, and that the action of the trial court in withdrawing it from their consideration could only be accounted for on the ground that the trial judge entertained the erroneous view that the issuance of the stock certificate and the acceptance of the same by the plaintiff estopped her from saying that she was not a stockholder, and from explaining by parol evidence the circumstances under which the stock certificate happened to be issued in her name. 56 U.S.App. 320, 29 C.C.A. 203, 85 F. 377, 378. The testimony on the last trial in support of the plaintiff's cause of action appears to have been more full and explicit than it was on the first trial. She testified to the existence of an express agreement between herself and the cashier of the bank, whereby the latter agreed on behalf of the bank to borrow the sum of money in controversy, and to pay interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum, payable semiannually, and as security for the loan to deliver to her a certificate for 250 shares of the bank's stock. She further testified that this agreement was executed on her part by the loan of the money, and that she accepted the certificate merely as collateral, being induced to do so by the representation of the cashier that the bank was solvent, and that the stock was adequate security for the money loaned. The testimony of the plaintiff to the effect last stated was fully corroborated by the evidence of another witness, who claimed to have been present in the bank, and to have heard the aforesaid agreement between the plaintiff and the cashier when it was made. We shall accordingly forego further discussion of this branch of the case, with the statement that as there was direct and positive testimony that...