Callahan v. Bank of Anderson
Citation | 48 S.E. 293,69 S.C. 374 |
Parties | CALLAHAN v. BANK OF ANDERSON. |
Decision Date | 08 July 1904 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; Dantzler Judge.
Action by John R. Callahan against the Bank of Anderson. From an order sustaining a demurrer to defendant's answer defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J. N Brown, J. M. Padget, and Quattlebaum & Cochran, for appellant. Bonham & Watkins and Geo. E. Prince, for respondent.
The plaintiff, in his first cause of action, alleges that he was a depositor with the defendant, and drew a check on it in favor of S. F. Royster Guano Company for $300, which the bank refused to honor, although there were funds to his credit on his deposit account; that he was compelled to take up this check, and by the action of the bank was damaged in the sum of $5,000. The second cause of action is substantially the same, except the further allegations that he was so seriously injured in his business and reputation as to be compelled to go into bankruptcy. The plaintiff demurred to the second and third defenses.
The second defense is as follows:
The third defense is similar, except it further alleges the plaintiff's insolvency as a reason for applying his deposits to his indebtedness.
The question in the case is whether the plaintiff has a right of action against the defendant for its refusal to pay a check drawn by him in favor of a third party, in the absence of notice to the plaintiff that the bank had applied his funds on deposit in extinguishment of past-due claims held against him by the bank, when he had deposited with the bank sums of money sufficient to meet payment of the draft. Conceding the general proposition that the relation of debtor and creditor exists between the depositor and the bank, it is necessary in this case to determine whether there are rights and duties arising from the very nature of the banking business that are not ordinarily incident to the relation of debtor and creditor. Such rights and duties are thus stated in Stillman v. Bank [69 S.C. 377] , 12 Rich. Law, 518, 78 Am. Dec. 468: Again the court says: (Italics ours.) The reasoning of the Court in the case just mentioned was strongly approved in Simmons v. Bank, 41 S.C. 177, 19 S.E. 502, 44 Am. St. Rep. 700, which is conclusive of the case under consideration. The court, in the case last cited, in speaking of the principles decided in Stillman v. Bank, uses this language: "That case shows just what the circuit judge held in this case--that the true theory is that when a bank receives the money of a depositor, and places the amount to the credit of such depositor on his deposit account, the implied contract on the part of the bank is that it will pay all checks drawn by the depositor, in such amounts and to such persons as may be mentioned in such checks, as long as there remains to the credit of the depositor on such account an amount sufficient to pay such checks." Again the court says: (Italics ours.) Permission was granted to review the case of Simmons v. Bank, 41 S.C. 177, 19 S.E. 502, 44 Am. St. Rep. 700, but this court sees no reason for receding from the principles therein stated.
As the questions raised by this appeal are conclusively settled by our own decisions, we have not deemed it necessary to cite those elsewhere.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages of the defendant bank for alleged wrongful dishonoring of his check in favor of F. S. Royster Guano Company, when plaintiff had on deposit with defendant funds sufficient to pay the same. This appeal comes from an order of Judge Dantzler sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to the second and third defenses of the answer.
The second defense was as follows:
The third defense is in the same terms, except that it further alleges the insolvency of the plaintiff as a ground for applying his deposits to his indebtedness to the bank.
The sole question presented by the demurrer and this appeal is whether a bank has a lien or right of set-off, whereby it may apply a general deposit of its depositor to his past-due indebtedness to the bank. We have no case in this state expressly deciding this question. Respondent's counsel cite Randolph v. Bank, 7 Rich. Law, 136 Fogarties & Stillman v. Bank, 12 Rich. Law, 518, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Maguire's Real Estate Agency
... ... v. Maguire's Real Estate Agency and James H. Maguire, Defendants, First National Bank in St. Louis (Garnishee) Appellant, Rutherfurd Bingham et al., Roy Rutherfurd et al., Mrs. Robert ... C. A. 408, 59 S.E. 31; Forgarties v ... State Bank, 12 R. I. C. H. L. 518; Callahan v. Bank ... of Anderson, 69 S.C. 374, 48 S.E. 293; Oatman v ... Batavian Bank, 77 Wis. 501, ... ...
-
Carolina Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of Greenwood
... ... appellant ... N. A ... Turner, Edward A. Harter, Jr., Columbia, J. Perrin Anderson, ... Greenwood, for respondent ... [217 S.C. 279] ... BAKER, Chief Justice ... Omitting the formal ... etc., of State Bank, 12 Rich. 518, 78 Am.Dec. 468; ... Simmons Hardware Co. v. Bank, 41 S.C. 177, 19 S.E ... 502, 44 Am.St.Rep. 700; Callahan v. Bank, 69 S.C ... 374, 48 S.E. 293, 2 Ann.Cas. 203; Bank of Spartanburg v ... Mahon, 78 S.C. 408, 59 S.E. 31.' ... Although ... ...
-
Calmenson Clothing Co. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Aberdeen
... ... 108, 89 N.E. 227; Simmons Hardware Co. v. Bank of ... Greenwood, 41 S.C. 177, 19 S.E. 502, 44 Am. St. Rep ... 700; Callaham v. Bank of Anderson, 69 S.C. 374, 48 ... S.E. 293, 2 Ann. Cas. 203; Smith v. Sanborn State ... Bank, 147 Iowa, 640, 126 N.W. 779, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 517, 140 Am ... ...
- Nauful v. National Loan & Exchange Bank of Columbia