Groover v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27441,27478,27547. |
| Citation | 3 S.E.2d 745,60 Ga.App. 357 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GROOVER v. SAVANNAH BANK & TRUST CO. SAVANNAH BANK & TRUST CO. v. GROOVER. SAME v. HEERY, Judge. |
Rehearing Denied July 15, 1939.
Syllabus by the Court.
Mrs Elizabeth L. Groover sued the Savannah Bank and Trust Company in trover for the alleged conversion of 100 shares of Coca Cola International common stock, alleging in her petition as amended that about October 30, 1935, she loaned her husband Robert N. Groover, the certificate for the purpose of borrowing $8,000 to buy out the interest of his partner, one Huger; that for that purpose she delivered to her husband the stock, having signed the transfer printed on the back of the certificate, leaving blank the places for the name of the transferee, the attorney to make the transfer and the date; that her husband procured a loan of $30,000 from the defendant on a note dated October 30, 1935, purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff but which signature was a forgery, the stock being delivered to the defendant as collateral security for the loan; that the defendant credited the proceeds of the loan in her savings department pass book of the defendant bank; that the plaintiff, at the request of her husband, signed in
blank two checks for the purpose of paying two small bills she owed, one check being drawn on the Liberty National Bank and the other on the Citizens and Southern National Bank that her husband filled out one check for $25,000 and the other for $5,085.32, and made them payable so that he could collect them, and upon each check altered the name of the bank on which the check was drawn and on each check substituted the name of the Savannah Bank & Trust Co. as the bank on which each check was drawn; that the defendant paid the checks and thus plaintiff's husband received the proceeds of the loan for $30,000; that on November 18, 1935 the plaintiff's husband presented to the defendant a letter directed to it purporting to be signed by the plaintiff but which signature was forged, in which plaintiff was made to say that she was giving her stock to her husband and the defendant bank was requested to have the stock transferred to her husband's name and that he would pay her note at the bank; that the defendant procured the transfer of the stock to the name of the plaintiff's husband and delivered it to him; that in December, 1935 and January, 1936, plaintiff's husband borrowed from the Citizens & Southern National Bank the sum of $57,000 and hypothecated the stock to secure the loans and all his other indebtedness to the bank; that plaintiff's husband defaulted on his loan from the Citizens & Southern National Bank and the stock was sold by it and the proceeds were applied to the plaintiff's husband's loans; that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the transactions between her husband and the defendant until about January 8, 1936.
In its answer the defendant either denied all the material allegations or alleged that for want of information it could neither admit or deny them. It alleged that it made a loan to plaintiff under the following circumstances: that Groover represented to defendant that plaintiff wished to obtain from defendant a loan of $30,000 to be secured by a pledge of 100 shares of common stock of the Coca Cola International Corporation, and presented to defendant a note for $30,000, payable to defendant's order, purporting to be signed by the plaintiff, and believed by the defendant to have been signed by the plaintiff, and believing that the plaintiff had authorized her husband to act for her in negotiating the loan. The amount of the loan was credited to plaintiff in a savings department pass book issued by defendant to Mrs. Robert N. Groover. It alleged that a check payable to cash, for $25,000, signed by plaintiff, endorsed by Groover, was deposited by Groover in the Citizens and Southern National Bank and presented by it to defendant and was paid by defendant and that it paid the check without any knowledge of any alteration or claim of alteration. The same was alleged with reference to the check for $5,058.32.
The defendant filed an amendment in which were included several grounds of defense as follows: II. That on or about January 11, 1936, plaintiff filed a suit in Chatham Superior Court in which she alleged that her husband then owned a majority of the capital stock of W. M. Coney & Co. and had full control over the management and operation of that corporation; that he had negotiated certain loans with the Savannah Bank & Trust Co., the Citizens & Southern National Bank, The Liberty National Bank & Trust Co., Citizens Bank & Trust Co., and others, using as collateral security for such loans, personal property and effects of hers, and particularly certain shares of stock in the Coca Cola International Corporation; that some of said loans were then past due and the collateral was likely to be sold at great loss to her; that a large portion of the funds derived from the loans was used for the purpose of paying various items of indebtedness of the insurance business conducted by Robert N. Groover, both individually and under the name of W. M. Coney & Co., the assets, personal property and effects of hers being converted into the assets of Robert N. Groover and W. M. Coney & Co.; that the funds or property of petitioner are, or will be, in litigation, and the rights of the parties to these proceeds can not be protected except by the appointment of a receiver to take charge of, operate and manage the assets, affairs and business of respondents in that cause, W. M. Coney & Co. and Robert N. Groover; that the prayers in said petition were that a receiver be appointed to take charge of all the assets of every character of both defendants; that the petition was verified by Mrs. Groover. It was further alleged in this amendment that the prayers of the petition were granted on an interlocutory order. This amendment further alleged that on or about January 16, 1936, Mrs. Groover accepted from Robert N. Groover a warranty deed stating that for and in consideration of the natural love and affection and other good and valuable considerations Robert N. Groover conveyed to Mrs. Groover all assets owned by him in the insurance business conducted by him, including claims or demands owing to him through said agency, all shares of stock in the W. M. Coney & Co., and insurance agency operated and managed by Groover, with any benefits inuring to W. M. Coney & Co. and Groover by virtue of stock owned by Groover, also all monies in deposit in The Citizens & Southern National Bank or in any other bank, whether subject to the check of Groover of Coney & Co. or not, with all monies in possession of Louis A. Brantley as receiver appointed in the above named case, and any funds to which the receiver might be entitled; also a Chevrolet sedan; one Austin automobile; one-half interest in a boat named Crusader; one-half interest in 400 acres of land in Bryan County, Georgia. It further alleged that on January 23, 1936, the Judge of the Superior Court of Chatham County passed an order reciting the appointment of Louis A. Brantley as receiver and the execution and delivery and acceptance of the deed above referred to, and reciting that the receiver had taken charge of the business, had recovered in addition to accounts receivable of the insurance business $1500 from the American Surety Co. on a claim of W. M. Coney & Co. against it, had recovered from the Citizens & Southern National Bank $2,928.56 in cash representing the difference between certain indebtedness due the bank by Groover and the value of the collateral pledged to secure the loan and that the bank was also holding in escrow the further sum of $4,209.39, which sum, or a portion thereof, would accrue to the benefit of Elizabeth L. Groover if certain collateral pledged should prove of value, and further reciting that by said deed Mrs. Groover had accomplished all that could be accomplished by the receivership proceedings and that the order directed the receiver to surrender all the assets in his possession to Mrs. Groover, to render a final accounting to Mrs. Groover, provided for his discharge as receiver and confirmed the deed of conveyance from Groover to Mrs. Groover; attached a copy of the final accounting by the receiver and Mrs. Groover's final receipt to him.
The final accounting and the final receipt are as follows:
Cash in bank as of January 25, 1936:
Liberty National Bank & Trust Company $3,592.35
Savannah Bank & Trust Company 2,386.54
Citizens Bank & Trust Company 157.04
---------
Total $6,135.93
Deductions:
Salaries to February 1, 1936:
Dorothy Harrie 18.75
A. P. Wells 25.00
C. V. Norton 30.00
Louis A. Brantley 35.00
Other deductions:
The amendment further alleged that on January 24, 1936, Mrs Groover filed a petition for divorce against her husband alleging that on or about January 8, 1936, she discovered that certain personal property of great value intrusted by her to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Padgett v. Collins
...could be. Southern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Firemen's, etc., Ass'n, 72 Ga.App. 663, 666, 34 S.E.2d 674; Groover v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co., 60 Ga.App. 357, 3 S.E.2d 745. I do not agree that Martin got a legal title and the plaintiff an equitable title, and that the rights of an inn......
-
Stallings v. Britt
... ... O. W., v. Beard, 26 ... Ga.App. 130, 105 S.E. 629; Groover v. Savannah Bank & ... Trust Co., 60 Ga.App. 357, 3 S.E.2d 745; Lydia ... ...
-
Yablon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... 481, 77 S.E. 577. In ... Dixon v. Bristol Savings Bank, 102 Ga. 461, 468, 31 ... S.E. 96, 99, 66 Am.St.Rep. 193, this court ... and in support of the contention, these cases are cited: ... Groover v. Savanah Bank & Trust [200 Ga. 704] Co., 60 ... Ga.App. 357, 3 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Bene, 30897.
...to act as the agent of another, even by forgery, the principal for whom he purports to act may ratify the act. Groover v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co., 60 Ga.App. 357, 3 S.E.2d 745. The courts of this state are virtually unanimous in holding that the election of such an inconsistent remedy is ......