Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Foster
Decision Date | 25 January 1923 |
Docket Number | (No. 1394.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 249 S.W. 227 |
Parties | SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO. v. FOSTER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Ballard Coldwell, Judge.
Suit by Samuel A. Foster and others against the Security Bank & Trust Company. From judgment for named plaintiff and certain other plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Winter, McBroom & Scott, of El Paso, for appellant.
Burges & Burges, of El Paso, and Stratton & Lynch, of Clifton, Ariz., for appellees.
Statement of Case.
This suit was brought in the district court of El Paso county by Samuel A. Foster, C. P. Austin, James Edgar, W. H. Graham, B. S. Jackson, and J. A. Leahy against the Security Bank & Trust Company, to cancel a note executed by plaintiffs and one D. L. Hill in the principal sum of $43,931.90, dated February 14, 1921, payable on demand to order of said bank, and to enjoin the sale of certain collateral held by the bank as security. Subsequently, and by agreement, the collateral was sold and its proceeds applied on the note. The bank set up several defenses to the suit, and by cross-action sought to recover of plaintiffs and Hill the amount of the note with interest and attorney's fees. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Foster, Austin, Edgar, Jackson, and Graham canceling the note as to them and in favor of the bank against Hill and the plaintiff Leahy for $38,018.90, due as principal and interest upon the note, and the further sum of $4,781.89 as attorney's fees. The bank appeals, and complains of the judgment rendered in favor of Foster, Austin, Edgar, Jackson, and Graham. Hill and Leahy do not appeal. The facts out of which the litigation arose are as follows:
The Security Bank & Trust Company and the Lordsburg State Bank were banking corporations, the former engaged in business at El Paso Tex., the latter at Lordsburg, N. M. L. J. Gilchrist and C. L. Ezell were vice presidents and active managing officers of the Security Bank. The makers of the note in question were directors of the Lordsburg Bank. Hill was also cashier, and subsequently president, of the latter bank Leahy was vice president thereof. Hill was the active managing officer of the Lordsburg Bank, and the other officers and directors seem to have had implicit confidence in him, and, according to their testimony (except Leahy, who did not testify), they knew nothing about the details of the bank's business or its actual financial condition.
On December 23d, 1920, the Security Bank loaned to the Lordsburg Bank the sum of $50,000 taking its demand note therefor, and at the same time acquired certain rediscounts for the latter bank. When this was done the Security Bank was furnished with what purported to be a copy of a resolution adopted by the board of directors of the Lordsburg Bank on December 20, 1920, authorizing its president, vice president, and cashier, or either of them, on behalf of said bank, unlimited authority to borrow money from the Security Bank, and to execute the proper obligations therefor, and pledge bonds, stocks, bills receivable, or other securities or property securing the money so borrowed, and also authorizing them to rediscount any of its bills payable with the Security Bank. This copy was certified to be a true extract from the minutes of a meeting of the board of directors held on December 20, 1920, the certificate being signed by Leahy as vice president, and attested by Hill as cashier under the seal of the bank.
In the early part of February, 1921, the principal of the note had been reduced by payment to about $43,000, but in the meantime an indebtedness upon overdraft had been created in the sum of about $10,400. The Security Bank was demanding payment of the balance due upon the note and the overdraft, and the Lordsburg Bank had failed to make payment. To secure the payment of this indebtedness the Lordsburg Bank had pledged bills payable owned by it in the aggregate sum of about $71,000 or $72,000. Shortly prior to February 7, 1921, Gilchrist went to Lordsburg to look after the loan, and found that the Lordsburg Bank was needing money badly. While there he conferred with Hill and Leahy with reference to the indebtedness, and Leahy stated that he was willing to pledge his own credit in behalf of the Lordsburg Bank. Gilchrist did not confer with the other directors. Shortly thereafter, and evidently for the purpose of settling the indebtedness and securing additional credit for the Lordsburg Bank, Hill sent to the Security Bank seven notes aggregating $80,000, each note purporting to be signed by one director and indorsed by the other directors. Accompanying each note was a draft purporting to be signed by the maker of the note and for the amount of his note. These drafts were drawn upon the Security Bank in favor of the Lordsburg Bank, and in the accompanying letter of Hill he requested the Security Bank to accept the notes and drafts and credit the proceeds to the Lordsburg Bank. The Security Bank refused to do so, and returned the same. Thereupon Gilchrist wrote Hill the following letter:
Accompanying this letter was the note in controversy. The note was prepared by J. H. Henderson, cashier of the Security Bank, who prepared the list of the collateral security, such collateral being selected by the Security Bank from the collateral then held by it. The note, with appellees' signatures thereto, was thereafter returned to the Security Bank by Hill with certified copy of a purported resolution of the board of directors of the Lordsburg Bank as follows:
Said note, with signatures thereto, reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rice v. Jones
...Texas as follows: Brown v. Rowan, 154 N.Y.S. 1098; Liberty Turst Co. v. Tilton (Mass.) 105 N.E. 605; Security Bank Co. v. Foster (Tex.) 249 S.W. 227; Bank v. Wilson (Vt.) 120 A. 889; Drumm Const. Co. v. Forbes (Ill.) 137 N.E. 225. These cases uphold the contention that a payee may be a hold......
-
Moore v. Croft
... ... taking note and mortgage, executed in blank and negotiated by ... bank officers to whom delivered contrary to instructions, ... with knowledge ... ( ... Ladd v. Read, 114 Kan. 175, 217 P. 273; Empire ... Trust Co. v. President and Directors of Manhattan Co., ... 97 Misc. 694, 162 Y.S. 629; Security Bank & Trust Co ... v. Foster (Tex. Civ.), 249 S.W. 227; Lloyd's Bank, ... ...
-
Foster v. Security Bank & Trust Co.
...and others against the Security Bank & Trust Company. Judgment for plaintiffs was reversed and rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals in 249 S. W. 227, and they bring error. Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of district court Burges & Burges, of El Paso, and Lynch & Stra......
-
Bank v. Roberts
...Instruments Act, and the cases of Finley v. Smith, 165 Ky. 445, 177 S. W. 262, L. R. A. 1915F, 777, and Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.) 249 S. W. 227. It is manifest upon the agreed facts that negotiation on December 12, of a demand note made on December 10, is made wit......