Banco Mercantil Americano de Cuba v. Taggart Coal Co.
| Citation | 276 F. 388 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3760. |
| Parties | BANCO MERCANTIL AMERICANO DE CUBA v. TAGGART COAL CO. et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Robert M. Hitch and A. B. Lovett, both of Savannah, Ga. (Curtis Mallett-Prevost & Colt, of New York City, and Hitch, Denmark & Lovett, of Savannah, Ga., on the brief), for appellant.
L. Z Rosser, of Atlanta, Ga., and Samuel B. Adams and A. Pratt Adams, both of Savannah, Ga., for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant's bill from the equity side of the court and transferring it to the law side.
The bill averred: That appellant, a banking corporation of Havana, Cuba, issued a letter of credit to the Taggart Coal Company, appellee, and advanced to it a total of $1,100,612 for the financing of shipments of coal from the United States to Cuban ports; that there was a balance due appellant of approximately $300,000; that in pursuance of agreement between the parties, appellant paid drafts in favor of the coal company through a correspondent bank in New York, when and as the same were presented at a bank in Savannah, Ga that to secure the repayment to appellant of the sums so advanced, bills of lading were forwarded from Savannah to appellant at Havana, and were delivered by appellant to the coal company in trust, evidenced by trust certificates executed by the coal company in favor of appellant, covering the shipments of coal or the proceeds thereof, and notes or trade acceptances taken in payment therefor; that the individual appellees were, respectively, the president and vice president of the coal company, and were in charge of the management of its affairs; that the coal company was not registered in Cuba, and that as a result, under the laws of Cuba, the individual appellees were jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the corporation; that certain shipments of coal had not been accounted for as required by the trust certificates; that some of the coal had not been sold, and some of the notes and trade acceptances for coal sold had not been delivered by appellees to appellant, but had been wrongfully withheld by them, and were in their possession; that appellees denied the existence of the indebtedness claimed by appellant, refused to account for the coal on hand, or for the proceeds of the coal sold, refused to deliver up to appellant the notes and trade acceptances received in payment for coal, and claimed the right to dispose of the coal, or its proceeds, and to collect for their own benefit the notes and trade acceptances then outstanding, and further refused to give an account or statement of the notes and acceptances held by them. Many other matters of detail are set out, but the foregoing statement comprises the essential averments of the bill.
The bill prayed for an accounting, that a trust in favor of appellant be decreed and impressed upon the coal that remained unsold, and that appellees be required to deliver to appellant the notes and trade acceptances, and the proceeds derived from the sales which still remained in their hands and that they be enjoined from disposing of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Electric Co v. Marvel Rare Metals Co
...Pub. Co. v. Jones Bros. Pub. Co. (C.C.A.) 231 F. 638, 643. Naivette v. Philad Co. (C.C.A.) 54 F.(2d) 623. Cf. Banco Mercantil v. Taggart Coal Co. (C.C.A.) 276 F. 388, 390.1 Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal was rightly Plaintiffs maintain that the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in su......
-
Hancock Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
...Pub. Co. v. Jones Bros. Pub. Co. 3 Cir., 231 F. 638, 643. Naivette v. Philad Co. 6 Cir., 54 F.2d 623. Cf. Banco Mercantil Americano v. Taggart Coal Co. 5 Cir., 276 F. 388, 390. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal was rightly denied." (Emphasis We are unable to see any difference so far......
-
American Cyanamid Co. v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co.
...suspensive appeal. We exercise our discretion to entertain the appeal. See Ford v. Huff (C. C. A.) 296 F. 652; Banco Mercantil Americano v. Taggart Coal Co. (C. C. A.) 276 F. 388. We see no point to the contention that the plea was bad because filed without the previous sanction of the cour......
-
Taylor v. Spurway
...the case to the law side in effect denied a preliminary injunction and is therefore appealable Banco Mercantil Americano de Cuba v. Taggart Coal Co. (C. C. A.) 276 F. 388; General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U. S. 430, 53 S. Ct. 202, 77 L. Ed. 408. The motion to dismiss is I......