Crider Bros. Commission Co. v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Ludlow
| Decision Date | 06 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | 11375 |
| Citation | 183 S.W. 648 |
| Parties | CRIDER BROS. COMMISSION CO. v. FARMERS' NAT. BANK OF LUDLOW |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Arch B. Davis, Judge. Action by the Crider Bros. Commission Company against the Farmers' National bank of Ludlow, Mo. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. M Davis & Son, of Chillicothe, and A. T. Weatherby, of Dawn, for appellant.
Fred S Hudson, of Chillicothe, and Lozier & Morris, of Carrollton, for respondent.
Plaintiff, a live stock commission company, doing business at the stockyards in Kansas City, sued defendant, a bank of Ludlow, Livingston county, to recover $ 2,839.32, the proceeds of 46 head of cattle which were covered by chattel mortgages held by plaintiff to secure the purchase price of the cattle which plaintiff had loaned to the mortgagor, C. F. Wallis. The mortgages had been duly filed in Carroll county where Wallis lived and kept the cattle. The petition alleges that defendant received the money with knowledge that it was derived by Wallis from the sale of mortgaged cattle and under an agreement with him to pay it over to plaintiff in satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness. The answer is a general denial. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
Wallis was a farmer and live stock dealer on an extensive scale. He had business dealings with a number of banks in northern Carroll and southern Livingston counties, but for several years had transacted his principal banking business with defendant, to which his relationship was that of depositor and borrower. In March, 1913, he sought the advice of defendant's cashier, Mr. Dusenberry, about purchasing a number of cows and heifers, and, as he states, was informed that defendant did not have available funds to lend him for that purpose, and was advised to buy the stock at Kansas City and borrow the purchase price from a commission dealer on chattel mortgage security. The cashier states he declined to make the requested advance, but not for the reason that the bank was short of money, and admits saying to Wallis: "Why don't you buy them from a commission company and let them furnish the money?" Shortly after this conversation Wallis bought two carloads of cows and heifers at Kansas City and borrowed the money from plaintiff to pay for them. He gave plaintiff his note for the purchase price of each carload, securing the note by a chattel mortgage. One of these notes dated March 28, 1913, and due October 24, 1913, was for $ 1,574.74, and the mortgage securing it was filed in Carroll county April 1, 1913. The other note dated April 2, 1913, and due October 26, 1913, was for $ 1,344.39, and its mortgage was filed April 7th. Both notes bore interest from maturity at 8 per cent, per annum. The cattle were shipped to Carroll county and kept on stock farms owned or controlled by Wallis until February 10, 1914, when, with the exception of four which had been sold and their proceeds applied on the mortgage indebtedness, all were sold at a public sale Wallis had on one of his farms at which nearly all his live stock was sold at auction. Defendant's cashier was a clerk at this sale and received all the proceeds, which amounted, after all collections were made, to the gross sum of nearly $ 15,000, including the proceeds of the mortgaged cows and heifers. At the time of the sale Wallis owed defendant for borrowed money about $ 16,000, of which the larger part was an overdraft. With his knowledge and consent Dusenberry took all the sale money to the bank and entered it to the credit of Wallis' deposit account. Afterward the credit was applied, as far as it would go, to the extinguishment of Wallis' indebtedness to defendant, and that course, which was taken by defendant without the consent of Wallis, gave rise to the present controversy.
Wallis states that a week or ten days after he purchased the cows and heifers he informed the cashier of his purchase, and that he had borrowed the money from plaintiff to pay the purchase price, and had given plaintiff a lien on the cattle as security. Further, Wallis states that before concluding to have a public sale in Carroll county he consulted the cashier, and began by saving he thought of shipping the mortgaged cows and heifers back to Kansas City and having them sold on the market there. The cashier advised against this on the ground that the cattle would bring more at a public sale in Carroll county and said to Wallis: "Just sell them that way and send them (meaning plaintiff) the check, and we will pay the check when it comes." Wallis followed this advice, had the sale advertised, and arranged for the cashier to act as clerk and make settlements with purchasers and deposit the proceeds in defendant's bank to the credit of his deposit account. On February 12th, the second day after the sale, Wallis drew and mailed to plaintiff his check on defendant bank for $ 2,839.32, the amount of the mortgage indebtedness. Plaintiff accepted the check, deposited it in a bank at Kansas City, and released the mortgages. Payment of the check was refused by defendant, and this suit followed.
The evidence is voluminous, and we have stated only the facts we find...
To continue reading
Request your trial