Gaty v. French
| Decision Date | 03 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 4140.,4140. |
| Citation | 3 S.W.2d 1043 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GATY v. FRENCH, Commissioner of Finance. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; Frank Kelley, Judge.
Action by R. P. Gaty against C. E. French, Commissioner of Finance, in charge of the Commercial Bank of Bertrand. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Russell & Joslyn, of Charleston, for appellant.
George W. Kirk, of Charleston, for respondent.
This action seeks to have a claim against a bank, in the hands of the finance commissioner for purpose of liquidation, declared a preference. The trial court refused to grant the relief asked, and plaintiff appealed.
The facts are substantially as follows: The plaintiff had on deposit for safe-keeping in the Commercial Bank of Bertrand $2,000 in government bonds. The bank desired to borrow $2,000 from the Federal Reserve Bank at St. Louis, Mo., and for the accommodation of the bank the plaintiff loaned his $2,000 in bonds to the bank and agreed that the bank might use these bonds as collateral to secure a loan of $2,000 from the Federal Reserve Bank. The bonds were used by the bank as agreed. The bank issued to plaintiff the following certificate of deposit:
— bearing the following indorsements:
The Commercial Bank of Bertrand failed and went into the hands of the finance commissioner for liquidation. Prior to its failure the plaintiff had demanded a return of the bonds, but they were not returned. They remained with the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral and were there at the time the Commercial Bank failed. Afterwards the plaintiff, in order to secure the return of his bonds, was required to and did pay the Federal Reserve Bank the amount for which the bonds were held as collateral which amounted to $2,030.68. He then filed his claim for that amount with the deputy finance commissioner in charge of the Commercial Bank, and it was allowed as the claim of a general creditor. This suit was then filed for the purpose of having this claim declared a preference with the result as heretofore stated.
The certificate of deposit issued to and accepted by plaintiff does not on its face contain any reference to a return of the bonds. The indorsement on the back, however, which, we think, must be taken into consideration does provide that the bank agrees to return these bonds to plaintiff on demand. The other indorsement on the certificate is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Farmers' Exchange Bank of Gallatin
...to pay the bank's debts. None of it came into the hands of the commissioner. This was a complete dissipation thereof. Gaty v. French, 3 S.W.2d 1043; In re Linn County Bank, 1 S.W.2d 206; Crawford Co. Comm. v. Strawn, 157 F. 49, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1100. (b) Entire assets of bank which came ......
-
Mann v. Farmers' Exchange Bank of Gallatin
...by the cases of Seify v. Bank, 44 S.W.2d 205, and In re Linn County Bank, 1 S.W.2d 206. Defendant cites the case of Gaty v. French (Mo. App.), 3 S.W.2d 1043, in of the contention that when plaintiff agreed the bonds should be used as collateral, she assumed the risk of the bank being unable......
- In re Kenage's Estate