Peoples State Bank v. St. Landry State Bank

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: NICHOLLS, C.J.
• Citation: Peoples State Bank v. St. Landry State Bank, 50 La.Ann. 528, 24 So. 14 (La. 1898)
• Decision Date: 21 February 1898
• Docket Number: 12,656
• Parties: PEOPLES STATE BANK v. ST. LANDRY STATE BANK

24 So. 14

50 La.Ann. 528

PEOPLES STATE BANK v. ST. LANDRY STATE BANK

No. 12,656

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 21, 1898

Submitted February 7, 1898

APPEAL from the Eleventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry. Dupre, J.

Plaintiff alleged that on or about the 8th of March, 1897, it received from the Metropolitan Bank of New Orleans a certificate of deposit issued by the St. Landry State Bank, in words and figures following, to-wit:

"ST LANDRY STATE BANK, NO. 31.

"OPELOUSAS La., March 12, 1896.

"Certificate of Deposit.

"Julius Meyers has deposited in this bank five thousand dollars payable subject to conditions (see agreement) in current funds on the return of this certificate properly endorsed.

"(Signed) FRITZ DIETLEIN,

"Cashier."

That said certificate has the following endorsements, to-wit:

"JULIUS MEYERS,

"HENRY ROOS.

"Pay to the order of Peoples State Bank,

"Metropolitan Bank of New Orleans.

"Endorsement guaranteed. A. C. WUERPEL,

"Cashier."

"Pay to yourselves or order.

"The Peoples State Bank of Opelousas, La.

"J J. PERRODIN,

"Cashier."

That said certificate was sent to petitioner to present to the said St. Landry State Bank in order to collect the amount called for thereby and said certificate under the agreement annexed thereto was due and exigible on the 11th of March 1897. That petitioner sent said certificate through its runner together with other items which it had that day before collected to the office of the said St. Landry State Bank in Opelousas, Louisiana, and handed the same to the cashier of said bank for collection. That the said cashier, instead of paying the said certificate, illegally and wrongfully kept and detained the same and refused to give it up, but addressed to petitioner a letter, a copy of which is annexed to its petition. That thereupon the cashier of the plaintiff bank addressed to the defendant bank a letter and received an answer thereto, which letter, with its reply thereto, it also annexed to its petition.

That the action of the St. Landry State Bank was illegal, wrongful and in violation of the custom prevailing between banks in the town of Opelousas and elsewhere; that it had no right to retain said certificate, but was bound either to pay or to return it to petitioner. That plaintiff was bound to obtain the return of the same in order to remit it to the Metropolitan Bank, or else to collect the money therefor. That the said bank having illegally and wrongfully taken possession of said certificate, was bound for the value thereof.

The premises considered, plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor, condemning the defendant bank either to return the certificate and agreement thereto annexed, or else to pay it the amount of said certificate, to-wit: the sum of five thousand dollars, with legal interest from 11th March, 1895, until paid.

In the letter of the plaintiff to the defendant bank (the letter was referred to in its pleadings), its cashier mentioned a certain telegram as having been received by it from the Metropolitan Bank, and which he stated accompanied his letter, and declared that the defendant bank would from it see the necessity under which plaintiff was to return the certificate of deposit which had been sent it for collection and which had been handed to defendant in plaintiff's regular clearings, but which it forcibly withheld. He made a formal demand on defendant for the immediate return of the certificate, or the payment of the amount thereof, announcing and warning it that his own bank would hold it responsible for the consequences of not doing so. Defendant replied that it was perfectly responsible for both the certificate and the deposit which it represented. That it claimed the ownership of both and would hold the same against the world until legally dispossessed. Defendant refused to return the certificate on the ground that it had become its property by virtue of an agreement bearing date Opelousas, July 31, 1896. Defendant excepted that plaintiff had no right of action, reserving its right to answer should the exception be overruled. The court ordered that the trial of the exception be postponed until the day of the trial of the case upon its merits, at which time it was to be taken up and disposed of before trial on the merits. That defendant should answer in the meanwhile without prejudice. Defendant answered, pleading, first, a general denial. Further answering, defendant averred, that it was the owner of the certificate declared upon and of the sum of money mentioned therein; that it became the owner thereof several months after said deposit was made, to-wit: July 31, 1896, and by transfer and assignment made by Isaac Roos, Henry Roos, Sr., Isidore Silverberg, Nathan F. Roos and Henry Roos, Jr., all residents of St. Landry, except Henry Roos, Jr., who was a resident of the parish of Orleans, said transfer and assignment being evidenced by a written contract executed and signed by defendant and by Issac Roos, who acted as agent for his said associates therein; that by the same the said Isaac Roos and his associates purchased from the defendant bank its claim of fifty-four thousand three hundred and thirty-seven dollars against the late firm of J. Meyers & Co.; the said Roos and his associates agreeing and promising, as part of the consideration of the transfer, that the defendant should not be held to account for the sum of money deposited in the defendant bank by Julius Meyers, and for which the said certificate was issued, and the said Roos and his associates had authority from Julius Meyers to transfer said assets to defen...