Peak v. Ellicott
Decision Date | 01 July 1883 |
Parties | MATTHIAS PEAK v. JOSEPH T. ELLICOTT, as Assignee of the Riley County Bank of Manhattan |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Riley District Court.
ACTION begun February 17, 1882, by Matthias Peak against Joseph T Ellicott, as assignee of the Riley County Bank of Manhattan. The petition, omitting court and title, is as follows:
Four months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of the Riley County Bank of Manhattan, Kansas seven hundred eighty-two 50/100 dollars, at the Riley County Bank, at Manhattan, with 12 per cent. per annum from maturity until paid. M. PEAK.'
And delivered the said note to J. K. Winchip, cashier of said bank, and received from him the money therefor, less a discount for the period above named; that afterward, to wit On the 22d day of November, 1881, said plaintiff had on deposit in said Riley County Bank to his credit a large sum of money, to wit, between three and four thousand dollars and Was desirous of drawing the same from said bank, and made application to its cashier for the same; that the said J. K. Winchip, cashier as aforesaid, then asked the plaintiff to pay his said note of $ 782.50 as above set forth, and thereupon, although the said note was not due, agreed to and with the said cashier of said bank to pay the same; that the said J. K. Winchip, cashier as aforesaid, told the plaintiff that the note was not there, but that he would send and get the same, and thereupon the plaintiff gave him, the said J. K. Winchip, cashier as aforesaid, seven hundred and eighty-two 50/100 dollars for the purpose of paying and to be applied on said note, and made and gave to plaintiff a receipt against said note, which receipt is in words and figures as follows:
"'The Riley County Bank of Manhattan, Kansas, Nov. 22, 1881, received of M. Peak seven hundred and eighty-two 50/100 dollars, in payment of note for same amount, due February 12, 1882.
J. K. WINCHIP, Cash.'
Thereafter the defendant demurred to the petition, upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant. At the December Term of the court for 1882, the case came on for hearing; the demurrer was sustained, and judgment entered that the defendant recover his costs. The plaintiff excepted, and brings the case here.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Green & Hessin, for plaintiff in error:
The receipt given by the bank as set forth in Peak's petition, and his instruction to the cashier, show, first, the estabtablishment of the trust; and, second, the setting apart of the fund by the cashier for the purpose of paying the note.
In Ingraham's case against the assignee, his petition shows the purpose for which the money was given; and the indorsement by the cashier on the copy preserved by the bank was a setting apart by the bank of the funds for that purpose. We think there can be no doubt that a trust was established in each case. (City of St. Louis v. Johnson, 5 Dill. 241; Levi v. Nat. Bank of Mo., 5 id. 104; Trinidad Nat. Bank v. Denver Nat. Bank, 4 id. 290; People v. M. & M. Bank, 78 N.Y. 269; Van Allen v. Am. Nat. Bank, 32 id. 1; Blaine v. Bourne, 23 Am. Rep. 429; Nat. Bank v. Ins. Co., 104 U.S. 54; Bayne, et al., Trustees, v. United States, 93 id. 642; Taylor v. Plumer, [3 Maule & Selwyn, 562,] referred to in Cook v. Tullis, 18 Wall. 341.)
The assignee stands in relation to the plaintiff in the same situation as the bank would have done had it remained solvent. The fact that the bank had made an assignment invests the assignee with only the rights the bank then had. This case should be heard and decided upon the allegations contained in the petition, and as if the bank itself were the defendant. Now the bank, having mixed this money with its own, the whole will be treated as a trust fund, except so far as the assignee can in this case distinguish it as belonging to the bank. (Nat. Bank v. Ins. Co., 104 U.S. 54; Pennell v. Deffell, 4 DeG., M. & G. 372, 378; Frith v. Cartland, 2 Hem. & M. 417, 420; Knatchbull v. Hallett, In re Hallett's Estate, 13 Ch. D. 696; In re LeBlanc, 14 Hun, 8.)
"Equity will follow money, even if put into a bag or an undistinguishable mass, by taking out the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bruce
... ... was mingled. (Meyers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan ... 87, 37 Am. St. 263, 32 P. 658; Peck v. Ellicott, 30 ... Kan. 156, 46 Am. Rep. 90, 1 P. 499; Insurance Co. v ... Caldwell, 59 Kan. 156, 52 P. 440; Ind. Dist. v ... King, 80 Iowa 497, 45 N.W ... ...
-
The Evangelical Synod of North America v. Schoeneich
...Sanford, 62 Mo. 394; Brick Co. v. Schoeneich, 65 Mo.App. 283; Leonard v. Latimer, 67 Mo.App. 138; Bank v. Ins. Co., 104 U.S. 67; Peak v. Ellicott, 30 Kan. 156; Thompson Bank, 8 A. 97; Plow Co. v. Lamp, 45 N.W. 1049. Burgess, J. Gantt, P. J., and Sherwood, J., concur. OPINION Burgess, J. Thi......
-
The State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
...Ill. 538; Burnett v. Bank, 38 Mich. 630; People v. Bank, 96 N.Y. 32; Bank v. King, 57 Pa. St. 202; Bank v. Gas Co., 36 Minn. 75; Peak v. Elliott, 30 Kan. 156; Waterbury v. Barry, 130 N.Y.S. 517; Robertson Board, 84 Kan. 52; Parker v. Burwell, 68 Wash. 386; Schofield v. Baker, 212 F. 505; Dr......
-
Foster v. Rincker
...with the general funds of the bank. (McLeod v. Evans, 66 Wis. 401; Francis v. Evans, 69, id., 115; Bowers v. Evans, 71 id., 133; Peak v. Ellicott, 30 Kan. 156; Ellicott v. Barnes, 31, id., 170; Meyers v. Board &c., 32 P. 661 (Kan.); Nurse v. Satterlee, 81 Ia. 491; Griffin v. Chase, 54 N.W. ......