State Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cantley
Decision Date | 05 March 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 16144.,16144. |
Citation | 6 S.W.2d 970 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE FARMERS MUTUAL TORNADO INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. S.L. CANTLEY, COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE, ET AL., APPELLANTS.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Johnson County. — Hon. Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
M.D. Aber for appellant.
C.H. Harrison for respondent.
This is a suit brought by plaintiff against the Farmers Bank of Leeton, Missouri, and the finance commissioner in charge of said bank. The purpose of the action is to have certain funds in the hands of the commissioner in charge of the assets of the bank declared to be entitled to a preference over the claim of general creditors. The court allowed plaintiff's claim as a preferred one in the sum of $616.02, being the amount of a certain draft issued by the cashier of the Farmers Bank of Leeton to plaintiff, together with the further sum of $3.20, being the protest fee and expenses incurred by plaintiff by reason of the non-payment of the draft. Defendants have appealed.
The facts show that plaintiff is a mutual tornado insurance company having assets of about eighty-six or eighty-seven millions of dollars, and policyholders scattered over the western part of the State. Assessments due plaintiff from its policyholders were collected through local banks in the following manner: Plaintiff would send to the bank a list of policyholders together with a letter explaining how the collection of the assessment should be made. Plaintiff would also send a notice to the policyholders notifying each of them of the amount of the assessment due and at what bank it should be paid. Plaintiff on July 1, 1925, and for twenty years prior thereto, used the Farmers Bank of Leeton as a collection agent to collect assessments from policyholders in and about the town of Leeton. It seems that one of these lists would be sent to the defendant bank about every two years.
Plaintiff was unable to get any report from defendant bank of the collections made by it, although plaintiff repeatedly wrote it from plaintiff's home office at Cameron, until October 3, 1925. On this date the bank wrote plaintiff that the total collections had been $628.59 and sent plaintiff a draft for that amount less two per cent collection charges. This draft, for $616.02, was drawn by the Leeton bank upon its correspondent bank, the National Bank of Commerce of St. Louis. It was admitted at the trial that at the time the draft was drawn there was enough money belonging to defendant bank in the St. Louis bank to pay this draft. On the receipt of the draft by plaintiff it was deposited to the account of plaintiff in the Bank of Cameron but before it reached the National Bank of Commerce of St. Louis defendant bank closed its doors and went into the hands of the finance commissioner and the draft was not paid.
The evidence shows that plaintiff had never formally opened an account with defendant bank and had no business with it except the sending of the lists in question. There was no specific instructions to the defendant bank as to how to handle the money paid in by the policyholders upon their assessments, that is to say, no directions as to in what manner the money should be kept in defendant bank pending its forwarding to plaintiff. The banks who made these collections "kept a list of that and when they are through they added up the list and send us (plaintiff) a draft." However, the books of the defendant bank showed an account with the bank in the name of plaintiff by which the money collected by these lists were shown as credits to plaintiff.
It is insisted that the court erred in allowing plaintiff's claim as a preferred one for the reason that the relationship of debtor and creditor and not that of principal and agent existed between plaintiff and the defendant bank after the collections were made and deposited to the account of plaintiff in the bank, and therefore the status of plaintiff was that of a general creditor when the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fielder v. Fielder
... ... court of Jackson county, Mo., removed from the state immediately after the expiration of the term of the circuit ... ...
- State Farmers Mut. Tornado Ins. Co. v. Cantley
-
State v. Cardwell Bank
...to us several cases which they contend will show error in the proceedings in this case. These cases are State Farmers Mutual Tornado Ins. Co. v. Cantley, 222 Mo.App. 839, 6 S.W.2d 970; Commerce Trust Co. v. Farmers' Exchange Bank, 332 Mo. 979, 61 S.W. 2d 928, 89 A.L.R. 373; State ex rel. Be......