Robinson v. Security Bank & Trust Company, 82

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Writing for the Court: HUMPHREYS, J.
• Citation: 216 S.W. 717,141 Ark. 414
• Parties: ROBINSON v. SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY
• Docket Number: 82
• Decision Date: 22 December 1919

216 S.W. 717

141 Ark. 414

ROBINSON
v.
SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY

No. 82

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 22, 1919

Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Sam Latkin, for appellant.

1. The court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. It was a case for a jury under the evidence and the law. 89 Ark. 368; 96 Id. 451; 107 Id. 158; 7 C. J. 639.

2. The law presumes that a deposit belongs to him who deposits it with the bank and in whose name it is entered. 177 F. 164; 120 Id. 526; 69 N.E. 215. A forged check does not protect the bank from a suit by the true owner and depositor. 57 N.Y.S. 525; 208 N.Y. 218.

P. R. Andrews and J. G. Burke, for appellee.

1. The court properly instructed the jury to find for defendant. There was no conflict in the testimony and nothing for a jury to pass on. 104 Ark. 267.

2. Plaintiff could not recover under the facts. Silence for a long time will be deemed ratification of the wrongful acts of an agent of the principal. 50 Ark. 466; 83 Id. 444; 96 Id. 505-511. The court probably directed a verdict, as the money was deposited and withdrawn by the same person and Boldin told plaintiff he had deposited and withdrawn the money. The presumption is that the money was the depositor's. 2 Michie on Banks, etc., 924-7, 975; 22 Ore. 202; 29 P. 435; 45 F. 163; 4 N.E. 619. Under the facts there was no error in directing a verdict for defendant.

OPINION [216 S.W. 718]

[141 Ark. 415] HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellant instituted suit against appellee in the common pleas court of Phillips County, to recover $ 300, alleged to be due him for money deposited in appellee's bank to his credit. A pass book showing a deposit of $ 200 in his name on December 17, 1913, and a [141 Ark. 416] certificate of deposit for $ 100, deposited in his name on the 16th day of January, 1914, were made the basis of the suit.

Appellee filed answer, denying any liability on account of the alleged deposits. Upon hearing, a judgment was rendered dismissing appellant's complaint, from which an appeal was prosecuted to the Phillips Circuit Court, where a trial was had at the April, 1919, term thereof. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury were peremptorily instructed to return a verdict for appellee, which was done; whereupon a judgment was rendered in favor of appellee, from which an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.

The evidence shows that two negroes, appellant and Will Boldin, raised a partnership cotton crop in 1913, on a farm belonging to Mr. Burke. Will Boldin took the cotton to Helena and sold it to Lee Pendergrass. Appellant instructed Will Boldin to deposit one-half of the proceeds to his (appellant's) credit in appellee's bank. On the first sale of cotton $ 200 was appellant's share, and Will Boldin deposited that amount to the credit of appellant, Gilbert Robinson, in the bank, and took a pass book showing the deposit, which he delivered to appellant. Out of the second sale of cotton, appellant's share amounted to $ 100, which was deposited by Will Boldin in the name of appellant, Gilbert Robinson, for which he took a certificate of deposit that was subsequently delivered to appellant. The first deposit was made on December 17, 1913, and the second on January 16, 1914. Thereafter, Will Boldin drew the money so deposited out of the bank on checks to...