First Nat'l Bank in Okla. City v. Duncan
| Decision Date | 25 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 17638 |
| Citation | 1927 OK 370,260 P. 491,127 Okla. 226 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN OKLAHOMA CITY v. DUNCAN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Banks and Banking--Trust Fund Deposited with Bank not Subject to be Set Off Against Depositor's Individual Debt to Bank--Circumstances Putting Bank on Inquiry as to Trust Character of Deposit.
Where a bank, although having no actual notice of the trust character of funds deposited with it has knowledge of circumstances such as are regarded as sufficient to necessitate inquiry upon its part, such bank cannot, as against the true owner, set off such funds against the individual indebtedness of the depositor to the bank.
2. Same--Rule as to Bank Appropriating Trust Fund on Deposit not Affected by Packers and Stockyards Act.
The rule above announced, in paragraph 1 of the syllabus, under the facts in the instant case, is not changed by reason of the Act of Congress of August 15, 1921, commonly known as the Packers and Stockyards Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture in pursuance thereof.
3. Same--Action Against Bank by Owner of Trust Fund Deposited -- Evidence of Drafts.
Under the circumstances in this case, as set forth in the opinion, held, it was not error to admit in evidence a series of drafts drawn by plaintiff on the National Live Stock Commission Company and paid through defendant bank.
4. Same--Evidence Justifying Submission to Jury.
Evidence examined; held, sufficient to sustain the trial court in submitting the case to the jury.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; William H. Zwick, Judge.
Action by G. C. Duncan against the First National Bank in Oklahoma City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Wilson & Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
Suits & Hall and Foose & Brown, for defendant in error.
¶1 The plaintiff in error will be referred to as defendant and the defendant in error as plaintiff, as the parties appeared in the trial court.
¶2 The plaintiff, for cause of action against the defendant, alleges the following state of facts: That on and for a long time prior to February 2, 1925, the plaintiff had been shipping cattle and hogs and clearing his business through the National Live Stock Commission Company, and drafts covering purchase price of live stock would be drawn by plaintiff on said National Live Stock Commission Company, and cattle and hogs so purchased were shipped to said commission company; proceeds derived from the sale thereof were held in trust by said company for the benefit of the plaintiff which enabled him to continue making purchases of live stock and shipping them to market at Oklahoma City to be sold by said commission company; and that all of the facts in relation thereto were known by the defendant; that on or about the 2nd day of February, 1925, plaintiff purchased three carloads of hogs from various farmers and stockmen in and surrounding Blaine county, Okla., and in payment thereof drew sight drafts on the commission company, payable to the individual owners of said hogs, and that of the drafts drawn, a total of $ 1,112.20 thereof was paid by the commission company, leaving the balance unpaid of $ 2,887.80; that on said 2nd day of February, 1925, plaintiff shipped said three carloads of hogs to the Cassidy Southwestern Commission Company at Fort Worth, Tex., and drew a draft on said company for the sum of $ 4,000 which draft was made payable to the National Live Stock Commission Company and delivered to said National Live Stock Commission Company for the specific purpose of paying outstanding drafts drawn theretofore by him and delivered to the various individuals in payment of purchase price of the hogs contained in the aforesaid shipments; that the $ 4,000 draft, when received by the National Live Stock Commission Company, was by it deposited in the defendant bank, and that the moneys represented thereby belonged to the plaintiff except in so far as the commission company paid the drafts which he had heretofore drawn, and which drafts so paid amounted to the sum of $ 1,112.20, as aforesaid; that the National Live Stock Commission Company was engaged in the brokerage business at all times, acting as agent either for the seller or purchaser of live stock, and that the defendant had knowledge of all of said facts and knew the character of the commission company's business, and that it was acting as agent to the plaintiff in the sale and purchase of said hogs; that the deposit of $ 4,000 made by the commission company in said bank did not in any way cause it to extend any credit to the commission company, or alter its position in any manner; that by reason of the long course of dealing between the commission company and the said defendant bank, the officers of the bank had knowledge of the business relations between the plaintiff and the commission company, and knew that the $ 4,000 draft in question was taken and held by said company for the use and benefit of the plaintiff for the purpose of paying the outstanding drafts which he had drawn on the commission company.
¶3 The second cause of action of plaintiff declares that the commission company was, on February 2, 1925, indebted to the defendant bank on an overdraft of approximately $ 10,000 and when the aforesaid draft was deposited to its credit, the bank and its officers and agents and employees appropriated the money in payment of the pre-existing debt evidenced by said overdraft; that the draft was sent to Ft. Worth, Tex., by said bank, as a protest to be paid at once or protested, and that the same reached the Ft. Worth bank, and the drawee in said draft named, before the hogs reached the stockyards at Ft. Worth; that in so handling said item, the defendant bank departed from its usual and customary method of handling such drafts; that the draft had been received by said National Live Stock Commission Company from the plaintiff as a trust fund, and no part of it belonged to the commission company, but the same was entirely the property of the plaintiff, and the only purposes for which it was delivered to the commission company was to furnish it funds with which to pay the drafts drawn by the plaintiff on it given to the individual owners of the hogs in question; that the defendant bank had knowledge that the draft drawn by him on the Cassidy Southwestern Commission Company, and which he had delivered to the National Live Stock Commission Company, was to be used in taking up his draft drawn for the purchase price of the hogs; that said bank received said $ 4,000 on deposit, and notwithstanding its knowledge aforesaid, turned down the drafts drawn by the plaintiff on the commission company and refused to apply said fund to the payment thereof; that by reason of the knowledge of said bank of the character of the commission company's business, and the character of the business conducted between the plaintiff and the said company, the bank had knowledge of the purposes for which said $ 4,000 draft had been received by the commission company and knew the funds raised thereon were trust funds for the purpose aforesaid, and notwithstanding such knowledge the bank had applied the same to the payment of its overdue debt evidenced by the overdraft against the commission company. The prayer of both counts is identical, that is, for money judgment against the defendant for the sum of $ 2,887.80, with interest from February 2, 1925.
¶4 The answer of the defendant was, first, a general denial, and a specific denial of knowledge, actual or constructive, on its part of the character of the funds deposited by the National Live Stock Commission Company in its general account; and a further specific denial of knowledge on its part that the same belonged to or at any time were claimed by the plaintiff or any one else than the depositor, the National Live Stock Commission Company. On these issues the cause was called for trial, which trial resulted in a judgment for plaintiff. To reverse this judgment defendant prosecutes its appeal to this court.
¶5 Defendant first assigns as error the act of the court in overruling its motion for a directed verdict. In fact, this constitutes the main assignment. The evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff discloses that he had been engaged in the live stock business for a number of years; that about the 1st of December, 1923, he made arrangements with the National Live Stock Commission Company to act as a clearing house through which to clear his drafts; that is, in purchasing stock he would pay for same by drafts on the said commission company, which drafts, in turn, were paid by said company through defendant bank and, upon sale of the stock, drafts arising therefrom would be deposited with the said company to reimburse it for the payment of the purchase price drafts, which said drafts were, in turn, deposited by said commission company to its credit in defendant bank. On February 2, 1925, plaintiff shipped three carloads of hogs to Fort Worth, Tex., consigned to the Cassidy Southwestern Commission Company, and drew his draft upon said company for the sum of $ 4,000, which said draft was made payable to the National Live Stock Commission Company and was delivered to said company. Said draft was so delivered to said company to pay drafts then outstanding drawn by plaintiff on said commission company for the purchase price of said hogs.
¶6 This $ 4,000 draft was deposited by the said commission company to its credit in defendant bank, which bank, on February 3, 1925, charged the same against said commission company to take up an overdraft of said company at said bank, which amounted at said time to approximately $ 10,000, and refused payment on drafts drawn by plaintiff on said commission company to pay for the said hogs, said refused drafts amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $ 2,887.80,...
To continue reading
Request your trial