Bank of Hatfield v. Bruce
| Decision Date | 09 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 32 |
| Citation | 262 S.W. 665,164 Ark. 576 |
| Parties | BANK OF HATFIELD v. BRUCE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; B. E. Isbell, Judge: affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Norwood & Alley, for appellant.
Her acceptance of the note, not signed by the bank, but by Johnson and his brother, and taking it away and keeping it was a waiver of any claim against the bank for the money. 158 Ark. 119. The statement sent her by the bank was an account stated, and, if it was in any way incorrect, she should have made that fact known to the bank in a reasonable time. 126 Ark. 266; 117 U.S. 96; 27 L. R. A. 823; 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 342; 1 R. C. L. 216. Johnson, according to the undisputed evidence, got the full benefit of the loan. His acts in this transaction, he being the vice president with limited authority, negotiated by himself, which resulted in benefit only to himself, were not binding on the bank. 170 U.S. 133; 3 R. C. L. 440, § 86; 126 Ark. 266.
Minor Pipkin, for appellee.
1. The statement of appellee's account, accompanied by the canceled check payable to the bank, was evidence and notice to her that the amount of her deposit account had been appropriated by the bank to its own use, and that was in accordance with her understanding that she had loaned the money to the bank. 65 Ark. 316. An account rendered is binding upon the party rendering it, as well as upon the other party. 28 Ark. 447.
2. Johnson was publicly held out as having authority to bind the bank. Appellee and the public generally had the right to presume that he actually had the authority which he was held out as having, and which was to be implied from the position he held, unaffected by any secret restrictions on his power and duties in connection with the business of the bank, of which neither appellee nor the public were shown to have had any notice. 1 Michie, Banks & Banking, 696, note 12, and cases cited.
This is an action by Mrs. L. B. Bruce against the Bank of Hatfield to recover the sum of $ 250.54, which she alleged was loaned the bank on the 19th day of January, 1921; that the bank was to pay her the sum of 10 per cent. interest on the loan from date. The bank denied that it borrowed any money from Mrs. Bruce, and denied that it was indebted to her in any sum.
Mrs Bruce testified substantially as follows: In January, 1921 she had money on deposit in the Bank of Hatfield. She had transacted business with the bank prior to that time. At that time she had a conversation in the bank with Louis Johnson, who had been working several years in the bank. She transacted her business with the bank through him. She was thinking of taking her money out of the bank and loaning it to some farmer. Johnson asked her to loan it to the bank, and told her that it would pay 10 per cent. interest. She replied that if she could not loan it in any other way she would let it go in that way. Johnson was vice president of the bank, and in charge of the same at the time. He told witness that, if she would let the bank have the money, the bank stood good for it--"was behind every bit of it." She agreed with Johnson to let the bank have the money. She had on deposit at the bank at the time, $ 250.54. She had no other understanding at all, only her money was in the bank safe and was to draw 10 per cent. interest. She afterwards received the following statement from the bank:
Attached to the statement was the following check:
Witness didn't draw the check, but supposed the letter "L" was for Louis Johnson. She didn't know whether the letters "B of H" meant Bank of Hatfield or not. After the loan was made in January, she made inquiries either in June or July. She wrote to M. J. Dover to know how much she had in the bank, and in reply he wrote her the following letter:
After she had received the above information she went to the bank and obtained the note. She talked to Mr. Holder, who was working in the bank at the time. She asked him about the note. She loaned the money to the bank in January, and did not know that the note was there until May, or thereafter. She heard that she had a note, but did not know for certain until she went and saw it. When she went down and asked them for it, they said it was Louis Johnson's. That was the first time she knew who had signed the note. She saw it, and left it there. When she got the note, she asked for her money, and they refused to pay her. After she instituted this action against the bank, she received $ 10 from Johnson, and that is all she had ever received. At the time she loaned the money to the bank she did not talk to anybody except Johnson. She did not know at that time who the president or cashier of the bank was. She did not know what position Johnson held; supposed that he was the manager. At the time she loaned the bank the money she was already receiving four per cent. Johnson did not tell her that he would use the money himself. Two or three weeks after the deal was made in the bank there the check came to her through the mail. When she loaned the money to the bank she never asked for any note. There was nothing said about a note. After Dover became interested in the bank, she went down and got the note. Mr. Henry Miller went with her. Holder got the note and delivered it to her, and read it to her at the time. She saw that the name of the bank was not signed to the note. This was some time in June or July, 1922. The note referred to was introduced in evidence, and the material parts thereof are as follows:
"One year after date I, we, or either of us promise to pay to Bank of Hatfield, Mrs. L. B. Bruce or order, the sum of two hundred fifty and 54 dollars, for value received, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum from date, payable at the Bank of Hatfield."
The note was signed L. H. Johnson and G. H. Johnson.
Witness asked for the money when she got the note, and Johnson said, "Mrs. Bruce, I am in hard shape now --I can't pay it now, but I will pay it just as soon as I can." She did not ask Johnson for the money--asked the bank for it. She did not get the note from Johnson. She was asking the bank to give her the note, and asking them for her money, and she was talking to the bank and Johnson. Holder was the member of the bank to whom she was talking. She did not demand the money of any certain person, but demanded it of the bank. She took the note away and kept it. She wrote Dover the following letter:
She did not do the writing herself, but had her neighbor, Mrs. Miller, to write it for her. She never saw the letter after it was written. She did not have Mrs. Miller to put what was in the letter about Johnson. Mrs. Miller drew on her imagination in writing that. She told Mrs. Miller how much she had loaned the bank, and witness and Johnson were the ones that did the talking. Mrs. Miller is related to the witness. Witness asked Mrs. Miller to write the letter to Dover to see whether there had been any more money put in there besides the $ 75. She had been informed that $ 75 was all that had ever been put on the bank book for her. After the loan was made the first and only statement she received was the one introduced in evidence. She saw from the statement that the amount was in there that she put in the bank. She did not understand the balance of the statement-- did not understand the bank.
Witness Henry Miller corroborated the testimony of Mrs. Bruce to the effect that he went with her to the bank when she got the note. When she got there, she first asked for the note. They gave her the note, and she asked for the money, and they paid no attention to her, and she turned and walked out.
E. D. McDaniels testified that he was in the bank with Mrs. Bruce in January, 1921, and heard the conversation between her and Johnson about the money. Johnson had been talking to Bruce, and Bruce came back to where Mrs. Bruce was and told her the bank would take her money and pay her 10 per cent.; that was said in the presence of Johnson. Johnson replied, "Yes, we will take all you have got and pay you 10 per cent." Johnson had been working at the bank for a long time, and was working there then, and witness supposed he was an officer, and it was here conceded that he was at that time the vice president of the bank.
E. D Holder, who was a witness for the bank, testified that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starling v. Hamner
...... taken in payment of the debt. This is true even of a note. executed by a third party. Bank of Hatfield v. Bruce, 164 Ark. 576, 262 S.W. 665; Hume v. Indiana Life Ins. Co., 155 Ark. 466, ......
-
Starling v. Hamner, 4-2557.
...the parties, the note is taken in payment of the debt. This is true even of a note executed by a third party. Bank of Hatfield v. Bruce, 164 Ark. 576, 262 S. W. 665; Hume v. Indiana Life Ins. Co., 155 Ark. 466, 245 S. W. 19, and cases there cited. The contract between Mrs. Starling and M. M......
-
Rice Growers' Credit Corp. v. Walker
...... a third person, the presumption is that he takes it by way of. security. Bank of Hatfield v. Bruce, 164. Ark. 576, 262 S.W. 665; Hume v. Indiana Nat. Life Ins. Co., 155 Ark. ......
- H. V. Beasley Music Company v. Cash