Judy v. Farmers & Traders Bank

• Decision Date: 31 October 1879
• Citation: 70 Mo. 407
• Parties: JUDY v. FARMERS & TRADERS BANK, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

70 Mo. 407

JUDY

v.FARMERS & TRADERS BANK, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1879.

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.--HON. G. PORTER, Judge.

REVERSED.

Macfarlane & Trimble for appellant.

W. O. Forrist, M. Y. Duncan and Kennan & McIntyre for respondent.

HENRY, J.

By the record, it appears that Judy was indebted to one Dyson by note, secured by mortgage on his land, in the sum of $2,000. This note and mortgage were executed on the 14th day of October, 1872, and the debt was payable three years thereafter with ten per cent. interest per annum. In January, 1875, desiring to borrow $5,000 on the same land, Judy applied to one Cassidy, of St. Louis, who agreed to lend him that sum, provided that out of the money the Dyson debt should be paid, so that there should be no incumbrance on the land prior to the mortgage Cassidy was to receive. It seems that Ringo, president of defendant bank, was to inform Cassidy when he might safely pay the $5,000, and on receipt of a cummunication from Ringo that “it was all right,” Cassidy paid to the bank Judy's draft for $5,000, twenty-five hundred of which was, by the bank, delivered to Judy, and the balance placed in the bank to the credit of Jno. P. Clark, who was then notified that it was to his credit for Dyson. It does not appear why the money was placed to Clark's credit. Ringo is dead, and Cassidy and Judy each testified that he did not authorize Ringo, or the bank, to place the money to Clark's credit. If not authorized by either of them, it was a most singular transaction on the part of the bank; and the facts, that the latter at once notified Clark of the deposit, and why placed to his credit, that there was evidence tending to prove that both Cassidy and Judy were aware that the money had been placed to Clark's credit, and made no objection; that Clark was a brother to Cassidy's brother-in-law, and on intimate terms with Cassidy, make a little more light on this question desirable. Clark, we infer from the evidence, is insolvent, or in doubtful circumstances. He never paid the money to Dyson, but used it for his own purposes. Cassidy purchased and now holds the Dyson note and mortgage, and Clark has given him his note secured by a mortgage on his land for the money so misappropriated by him. The petition alleges that the bank received the $2,500 under an agreement to apply it on the Dyson debt, which then amounted to that sum, and the prayer is, that the bank be decreed to pay the debt to Dyson...