Leach v. Citizens' State Bank of Arthur

• Decision Date: 14 December 1926
• Docket Number: No. 37424.,37424.
• Citation: Leach v. Citizens' State Bank of Arthur, 211 N. W. 526, 202 Iowa 879 (Iowa 1926)
• Parties: LEACH, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKING, v. CITIZENS' STATE BANK OF ARTHUR.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

202 Iowa 879

211 N.W. 526

LEACH, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKING,

v.CITIZENS' STATE BANK OF ARTHUR.

No. 37424.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 14, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Ida County; R. L. McCord, Judge.

Application for an order establishing a claim as a preferred claim against the assets of a bank in the hands of a receiver.The court refused to establish said claim as a preference, and the claimant appeals.The facts appear in the opinion.Affirmed.

See, also, 211 N. W. 522.

Charles S. Macomber, of Ida Grove, for appellant.

Ben. J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., S. S. Faville, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. R. Murphy, of Ida Grove, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was a depositor in the Citizens' State Bank of Arthur.It appears that said deposit was on open account, and that the appellant had been a customer of said bank for a period of more than five years.Prior to the transaction in question she had frequently drawn money from said bank.It appears that her method of drawing said money was to ask for money at the bank, stating the amount she desired, and to always receive the same in the form of a cashier's check.She never issued checks against her account.In the afternoon of Saturday, February 23, 1924, the appellant went to said bank, and stated to the officer in charge that she wished to withdraw some money for the purpose of paying certain taxes, the amount being $1,051.11, and thereupon said officer gave to the appellant a cashier's check for said amount.The bank was closed on the same afternoon on which said transaction took place, and did not open thereafter.A receiver was duly appointed.The payment of said cashier's check was refused.The appellant claims that under said state of facts she is entitled to a preference for the amount of said cashier's check.Appellant parted with nothing at the time of the transaction.She made no deposit in the bank, and gave nothing to the bank.She received from the bank exactly what she asked for, to wit, a cashier's check for a certain amount.The failure to pay the cashier's check under such circumstances does not entitle her to a preference.Danbury State Bank v. Leach (Iowa)207 N. W. 336.See, also, Leach v. Battle Creek Savings Bank, Alexander, Intervener, 211 N. W. 527, andLeach v. Iowa State Savings Bank, First National Bank of Council Bluffs, Intervener, 211 N. W. 517, both filed at present sitting.

Appellant claims that the bank acted fraudulently.There is no proof whatever in...