Bank v. Gandy

Decision Date07 July 1881
Citation9 N.W. 566,11 Neb. 431
PartiesBANK v. GANDY.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error from York county.

France & Sedgwick, for plaintiff,

W. T. Scott, for defendant.

COBB, J.

This is a controversy between the plaintiff in error and the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of York, as garnishee of L. J. Gandy. The plaintiff recovered a judgment some time ago against the said Lemuel J. Gandy, and having caused an execution to be issued thereon and placed in the hands of the sheriff of York county, also sued out a process of garnishment against the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of York county, as a debtor of the said Lemuel J. Gandy. The bank appeared, by its assistant cashier, and made the following disclosure: William A. Sharrar, sworn on part of plaintiff, says, in answer to garnishee heretofore served upon him: I am assistant cashier of the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of York, York county, Nebraska; am well acquainted with the defendant Lemuel J. Gandy. Question. State, Mr. Sharrar, if the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank is indebted to Mr. Lemuel J. Gandy? Answer. Yes sir; not indebted to Mr. Gandy. Q. Has Mr. Gandy left money at the bank? A. Yes, he left money there. Q. When? A. First date.(?) Q. How was that money left there? A. As the money of York county, by L. J. Gandy, as county treasurer. Q. How much money was left there? It is here admitted by the plaintiff and Lemuel J. Gandy, defendant, that there is now, and was at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment, money enough in the possession of the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank to pay the judgment of plaintiff, and not less than $1,500. That said amount of money, not less than $1,500, so in the possession of said Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, was deposited there as the money of York county by defendant, L. J. Gandy, as treasurer of said York county, and was subject to the check of L. J. Grandy as treasurer of York county, and that such funds were collected by said Gandy as treasurer of York county, and deposited in said bank by him as such treasurer for safe-keeping. Q. Were the funds subject to the check of L. J. Gandy, county treasurer? A. Yes, sir; his check as county treasurer. Q. Was it subject to his personal or private check? A. No, sir.”

It thus appears that Mr. Gandy, the county treasurer, had deposited $1,500 of the money, which he had received from the tax payers of the county, in the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank. By means of the process of garnishment the district court was called upon to define the status of the money thus deposited, or rather the relationship assumed by the said Farmers' & Merchants' Bank towards individuals and the public by accepting such money as a general deposit, and placing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Hill
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1896
    ...bailments, or the rights the beneficiary has in other sorts of trusts. The same criticism applies to First Nat. Bank of South Bend, Ind. v. Gandy, 11 Neb. 431. support of an argument on the proposition that the depositing of the money in the Capital National Bank by defendant Hill did not m......
  • State v. Thum
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1898
    ... ... THUM, RECEIVER Supreme Court of Idaho December 16, 1898 ... PUBLIC ... MONEY-TRUST FUND, WHEN DEPOSITED IN BANK-BELONGS TO TRUE ... OWNER.-Public money deposited by a public officer in a bank ... becomes a trust fund, and not part of the estate of the bank, ... This could be done only by ... legislative authority, if at all. ( State v. Keim, 8 ... Neb. 63; Approved in First Nat. Bank v. Gandy, 11 ... Neb. 431, 9 N.W. 566; State v. Bartley, 39 Neb. 353, ... 58 N.W. 172, 176.) When a depositor makes a general deposit ... in a bank the ... ...
  • State v. Hill
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1896
    ...or overrule previous decisions shown to be fundamentally wrong. Per Post, C. J.; all concur. 19. State v. Keim, 8 Neb. 63;Bank v. Gandy, 9 N. W. 566, 11 Neb. 431; and Cedar Co. v. Jenal, 15 N. W. 369, 14 Neb. 254,--criticised. State v. Hill, 57 N. W. 548, 38 Neb. 698, distinguished. 20. Whe......
  • McIntosh v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1897
    ...of public funds and money” (sections 4 and 5, c. 8, Comp. St.), operates prospectively, as well as retroactively. 5. Bank v. Gandy, 9 N. W. 566, 11 Neb. 433, disapproved. 6. A payment of a part only of a liquidated past-due debt, in full settlement, is not good as an accord and satisfaction......
  • 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