Lummus Cotton Gin Co. v. Walker

• Decision Date: 13 January 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 238
• Citation: 195 Ala. 552,70 So. 754
• Parties: LUMMUS COTTON GIN CO. v. WALKER, Superintendent of Banks.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

70 So. 754

195 Ala. 552

LUMMUS COTTON GIN CO. v. WALKER, Superintendent of Banks.

6 Div. 238

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1916

Appeal from Chancery Court, Cullman County; James E. Horton, Jr. Chancellor.

Petition in intervention by the Lummus Cotton Gin Company against A.E Walker, Superintendent of Banks of Alabama, administering the affairs of the insolvent German Bank of Cullman, to establish a claim as a preferred creditor. Relief denied, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Steiner Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, and George H. Parker, of Cullman, for appellant.

Eyster & Eyster, of New Decatur, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

There is no occasion for a particular discussion of appellant's claim that any funds, much or little, in the possession of the insolvent bank at the time appellee took over the affairs of the bank under authority of the statute, should be charged with a specific trust for appellant's benefit on the ground that the money collected for appellant was to be found somewhere in those funds which at that time constituted a part of the general estate of the bank. That question has been foreclosed against appellant by the reason and authority of cases heretofore considered in this court. Bank of Florence v. U.S. Savings & Loan Co., 104 Ala. 297, 16 So. 110; Nixon State Bank v. First State Bank, 180 Ala. 291, 60 So. 868.

But appellant claimed by way of alternative a preference under section 250 of the Constitution as the holder of a bank note or as a depositor who had not stipulated for interest.

That the cashier's check by which the insolvent bank undertook to transmit to appellant the money collected for its account, though in legal effect payable to appellant or its indorsee on demand and not subject to countermand, was not a "bank note" within the meaning of the constitutional provision, is clear. Without reference to the fact that it was not made to appear that the insolvent bank had qualified itself to issue "bills for circulation" as required by section 248 of the Constitution, it is enough to say in this connection that, patently, this cashier's check was not intended to circulate as money or to become a part of the common currency of the country to be used in the ordinary transactions of business, and was therefore not a bank note. 2 Michie, Banks and Banking, § 196 et seq.

Nor was appellant a depositor. A "depositor," speaking generally, is one who delivers to or leaves with a bank money subject to his order, either upon time deposit or subject to check. 2 Michie, § 119. Of course, bills, checks, drafts, or other evidences of debt in the ordinary course of business may be accepted and credited by a bank as the equivalent of money, in which case ordinarily the bank becomes the owner of the paper. This is the rule although the bank has the right to charge dishonored paper back to the depositor instead of proceeding against the maker. Michie, § 127, and cases shown by the notes. A cashier's check issued on request of a depositor is the substantial equivalent of a certified check and the deposit represented by the check passes to the credit of the checkholder, who is...