Security State Bank and Trust v. Texas Bank & Trust Co. of Dallas, 4999
| Decision Date | 01 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 4999,4999 |
| Citation | 466 S.W.2d 590 |
| Parties | SECURITY STATE BANK AND TRUST, Appellant, v. TEXAS BANK & TRUST CO. OF DALLAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Travis M. Moursund, San Antonio, for appellant.
Stigall, Maxfield & Collier, John F. Maxfield, Dallas, for appellee.
This is an appeal by plaintiff Security State Bank & Trust from a take nothing judgment against defendant Texas Bank & Trust Company, in a suit for conversion of funds.
Plaintiff Security Bank of Fredericksburg sued defendant Texas Bank of Dallas alleging defendant was in possession of funds of plaintiff; that defendant charged the sum of $26,995.83 against funds in its hands belonging to plaintiff; that such charge was purportedly made by defendant as a result of notes signed by Wade Bazemore; that such charge was without authority of plaintiff, and constituted a conversion of funds belonging to plaintiff.
Defendant answered by general denial; and further that plaintiff was indebted to defendant at the time of the charges against plaintiff's account; and defendant exercised its right of set off against such account.
Trial was to the court, which at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence rendered judgment plaintiff take nothing.
Plaintiff appeals on 6 points contending:
1) The trial court erred in rendering judgment for defendant because the evidence was conclusive defendant converted plaintiff's funds without any authority.
2) The trial court erred in rendering judgment for defendant because there is no evidence plaintiff ever became obligated in any way for the notes of Bazemore.
Security Bank of Fredericksburg and Texas Bank of Dallas each maintained an account with the other.
In July 1965 Arthur Stehling, President of plaintiff Security Bank introduced Wade Bazemore to the officials of Texas Bank in Dallas, and secured, and arranged a loan from defendant Texas Bank to Bazemore. At this time Security Bank had loaned Bazemore the full loan limit that they could lend him.
On July 26, 1965 Stehling at the Security Bank in Fredericksburg, made out a note for $15,000. payable to Texas Bank, had Bazemore sign the note; paid Bazemore $15,000., charged Texas Bank's account with Security Bank with $15,000., and mailed the note with the following letter to Texas Bank:
'SECURITY STATE BANK AND TRUST
Fredericksburg, Texas
Arthur Stehling
President
July 26, 1965
Mr. Oscar Lindemann
President
Texas Bank and Trust
Dallas, Texas
Dear Oscar:
I am sending you the note of Wade E. Bazemore for $15,000.00 and charging your account accordingly.
You will recall that I discussed this note with you. There may be an additional note of $5,000.00 or $10,000.00. Mr. Bazemore is presently arranging permanent financing of his Tourist Center and has received a commitment which is being processed now. Prior to the maturity of this $15,000.00 note and the other note for $5,000.00 or $10,000.00, we will be in a position to, and will, lend Mr. Bazemore the money necessary to pay these notes.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Arthur Stehling
Arthur Stehling'.
The additional sum of $10,000. was evidenced by a note signed by Bazemore at Fredericksburg payable to Texas Bank. The $10,000. was paid to Bazemore by Security Bank, which charged Texas Bank's account with such sum, and on August 6, 1965, mailed the Texas Bank the note with the following letter:
'SECURITY STATE BANK AND TRUST
Fredericksburg, Texas
Arthur Stehling
President
August 6, 1965
Mr. Oscar C. Lindemann
President
Texas Bank and Trust
Dallas, Texas
Dear Oscar:
I am sending you the other $10,000.00 note of Wade E. Bazemore, which I referred to in my letter of July 26th.
We are charging your account with the proceeds of this note.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Stehling'.
The above notes were not paid by Bazemore when due, and were renewed by Texas Bank at Security Bank's request.
The renewal notes were not paid by Bazemore, and Texas Bank by letter requested Security Bank to 'take up these two notes as previously agreed to by you'. Security Bank did not do so.
On May 23, 1967 Texas Bank assigned the two notes to Security Bank; mailed them to Security Bank; and charged Security Bank's account with $26,995.83, the amount due on such notes.
Thereafter as noted, Security Bank sued Texas Bank alleging conversion of plaintiff's funds; and Texas Bank by answer asserted Security Bank was indebted to it, and it merely exercised its right of set off...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elizarraras v. Bank of El Paso
...agreement to be valid. Appellant contends that a bank may set off a contingent debt, citing Security State Bank and Trust v. Texas Bank & Trust Co. of Dallas, 466 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.Civ.App.1971) as its authority. We do not read Security State Bank so broadly; thus we reject this contention. F......
-
Soto v. First Gibraltar Bank, FSB San Antonio
...1 First Nat'l Bank v. Winkler, 139 Tex. 131, 161 S.W.2d 1053, 1056 (1942); Security State Bank & Trust Co. v. Texas Bank & Trust Co., 466 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.). But banks may not offset trust account funds in which the true owner is not the depositor. ......
-
Texas Commerce Bank-Hurst, NA v. US, Civ. A. No. 4-86-69-E.
...right of set-off, without the exercise thereof, does not relieve the taxpayer of its "right" to property. See Security State Bank & Trust v. Texas Bank & Trust, 466 S.W.2d 590, 591 (bank must "apply a deposit to an indebtedness due" for taxpayer to lose right to property); Vernon Bus. & Com......