Leach v. Citizens' State Bank of Arthur

• Decision Date: 14 December 1926
• Docket Number: 37424
• Citation: Leach v. Citizens' State Bank of Arthur, 211 N. W. 526, 202 Iowa 879 (Iowa 1926)
• Parties: ROBERT L. LEACH, State Superintendent of Banking, Appellee, v. CITIZENS STATE BANK OF ARTHUR, Appellee; LOUISA J. SONNICKSON, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

211 N.W. 526

202 Iowa 879

ROBERT L. LEACH, State Superintendent of Banking, Appellee, v. CITIZENS STATE BANK OF ARTHUR, Appellee;

LOUISA J. SONNICKSON, Appellant

No. 37424

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 14, 1926

Appeal from Ida District Court.--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.

Charles S. Macomber, for appellant.

Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, S. S. Faville, Assistant Attorney-general, and J. R. Murphy, for appellee.

OPINION

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 St. Bank v. Leach,201 Iowa 321, 207 N.W. 336.See, also, Leach v. Battle Creek Sav. Bank(Alexander, Intervener), 202 Iowa 875, 211 N.W. 527, andLeach v. Iowa State Sav. Bank (First Nat. Bank of Council Bluffs, Intervener),202 Iowa 894, 211 N.W. 517.

Appella...