Johnson v. NATIONAL BANK OF FRANKLIN

• Decision Date: 12 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 5482.,5482.
• Citation: Johnson v. NATIONAL BANK OF FRANKLIN, 41 F.2d 364 (6th Cir. 1930)
• Parties: JOHNSON v. NATIONAL BANK OF FRANKLIN et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

41 F.2d 364 (1930)

JOHNSON v. NATIONAL BANK OF FRANKLIN et al.

No. 5482.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 12, 1930.

C. W. K. Meacham, of Chattanooga, Tenn. (Myles P. O'Connor, of Nashville, Tenn., and Cantrell, Meacham & Moon, of Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.

Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn. (Bass, Berry & Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellees.

Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In January of 1920, appellant delivered to E. D. Green, cashier of the National Bank of Franklin, for safe-keeping, Liberty bonds of the face value of $13,000. The bank had a small number of tin boxes which it kept in its burglar and fireproof safe, and in which it permitted its directors and perhaps some of its depositors to place their securities. Appellant was one of its directors, and Green accepted the bonds and placed them in one of these boxes. He was directed by appellant to clip the coupons on the bonds as they became due and place the proceeds to appellant's credit in the bank. Thereafter, until the bank failed in 1926, Green regularly credited appellant on the books of the bank with amounts representing the coupons as they became due. Appellant did not again see the bonds after delivering them to Green, who alone, with other employees of the bank, had access to the safe. Upon the failure of the bank, appellant applied to Pearson, the receiver, for the return of the bonds. Pearson caused a search to be made for them in the bank, but was unable to find them. He found in the vault a box containing an empty envelope bearing the words, "Bonds of E. T. Johnston, $13,000.00," in Green's handwriting. Thereupon appellant filed with the receiver a creditor's claim for the amount of the bonds, and this being denied, brought this action to have his claim allowed as a preferred claim against the bank, and in any event to be permitted...