Johnston Fife Hat Co. v. Nat'l Bank of Guthrie
Decision Date | 13 February 1896 |
Citation | 44 P. 192,4 Okla. 17,1896 OK 17 |
Parties | JOHNSTON FIFE HAT COMPANY v. THE NATIONAL BANK OF GUTHRIE. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Error from the District Court of Logan County.
¶0 1. DAMAGES--Petition for, States Facts Sufficient. When--Error. A petition for damages against a bank which alleges that Melone Bros. were engaged in the mercantile business in the City of Guthrie; that the National Bank of Guthrie was a corporation engaged in the general banking business; that DeSteiguer was the president of the bank, and had active control and management of its business; that the Johnston Fife Hat company was a corporation under the laws of Missouri, doing a general merchandise business; that Melone Bros. entered into a conspiracy with DeSteiguer, and through him with the bank, whereby Melone Bros were to purchase of wholesale dealers goods to the amount of several thousand dollars on credit, and have them shipped to their Guthrie store; that the bank was to loan them $ 1,000, and take a chattel mortgage on the stock for a large sum; then sell the goods under the mortgage, and give the bank one-third the proceeds and the Melone Bros. two-thirds, and leave the creditors unpaid; that pursuant to this conspiracy they bought goods of plaintiff in the sum of $ 354, and goods from divers other firms to the value of over $ 10,000; that the bank loaned them $ 1,000 and took a chattel mortgage on the stock for $ 9,960, and before the bills for goods became due, foreclosed the mortgage and took possession of goods and sold same for $ 5,300, which the bank received; that the plaintiff sold the goods in good faith with no knowledge of the conspiracy to defraud, and which seeks to recover the value of the goods sold, states a good cause of action against the bank, and it was error to sustain a demurrer to such petition.
2. BANKING CORPORATIONS--Liable for Damages, When. It is a part of the duty of a banking corporation to loan money, and to collect such loans by sale of goods or other security, and where the president of the bank has the active control and management of the affairs of the bank, and in conducting its business enters into a conspiracy to defraud, and puts the same into execution whereby another is damaged, the bank will be liable in tort for the damages.
3. SAME--Liable for Acts of Officers. A managing officer of a bank is not a servant of the corporation, but is the head of the corporation, who does its thinking and through him it acts. And the bank is liable for his torts committed in carrying on its business while acting in the scope of his powers, even though the tortious acts are not within the corporate Dowers of the bank.
4. SAME--Guilty of Fraud. A corporation may be guilty of a fraud. As a mere legal entity it can have no will, and cannot act at all, but in its relations to others, it is represented by its officers and agents, and their fraud in the course of the corporate dealings is, in law, the fraud of the corporation.
5. SAME--Responsible for Wrongs. Corporations are responsible for the wrong s committed by them, under substantially the same rules which govern the responsibility of natural persons.
6. SAME--Fraud. If an officer of a banking corporation, while exercising the authority conferred on him by the corporation, is guilty of falsehood and fraud, the corporation is liable for the consequence which may flow therefrom.
7. SAME--Notice of Fraud. Where the president of a banking corporation, who has the control and management of its business, enters into conspiracy to defraud third persons, and carries out such fraudulent design through his relations with the bank, such corporation has notice of such fraud, and if it accepts the benefits resulting therefrom it becomes a participant in the fraud and liable for the damage.
Keaton & Cotteral, for plaintiff in error.
E. B. Green and Harper S. Cunningham, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiffs brought their action in the district court of Logan county to recover judgment against the defendant, together with certain other defendants, in which complaint they alleged that the defendants had entered into a conspiracy by which the plaintiffs were defrauded in the sale of certain merchandise. The complaint is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilbert v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Chickasha
...to that court upon questions peculiarly within its province. This we have consistently done, beginning with Johnston Fife Hat Co. v. National Bank of Guthrie, 4 Okla. 17, 44 P. 192, through Shawnee National Bank v. Purcell Wholesale Grocery Co., 34 Okla. 34, 124 P. 603, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) ......
-
Gooch v. Natural Gas Supply Co.
...that Reardon was acting in his own interest in connection with Burns rather than in the interest of the corporation. ¶16 Johnston Hat Co. v. Bank, 4 Okla. 17, 44 P. 192. The corporation accepted the proceeds of the fraudulent transaction and was not permitted to escape liability upon the gr......
-
Evans v. Burson
...75 N.W. 397, as reported in 47 L.R.A. 433. In our own court but two decisions touch upon the subject. In Johnston Fife Hat Co. v. National Bank of Guthrie, 4 Okla. 17, 44 P. 192, the president of the defendant bank had fraudulently conspired with certain merchants as a result of which they ......
-
Franklin Bond Corp. v. Smith
...agents, and their fraud in the course of the corporate dealings is, in law, the fraud of the corporation." Johnston Fife Hat Co. v. National Bank of Guthrie, 4 Okla. 17, 44 P. 192. 5. Principal and Agent--Agency as Question of Fact. "It is the settled rule that the question of agency and th......