Thomas v. Mothersead
| Decision Date | 26 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 17224 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. MOTHERSEAD, State Bank Commissioner. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Banks and Banking--Insolvent State Bank--Preferred Claim--Requisites. "Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the State Bank Commissioner in charge of an insolvent bank, it is necessary to establish, first, that the claim in question is a trust fund; and, second, that the fund in some form was a part of the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the Commissioner." Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward, 124 Okla. 185, 256 P. 43.
2. Banks and Banking--Collection of Check for Depositor--Relation of Principal and Agent. Where a bank accepts from its depositor a check for collection and remittance, though the depositor is given credit therefor, the relation of principal and agent arises between the depositor and the collecting bank and others acting for such bank, and this relation continues to the completion of the transaction.
3. Banks and Banking--Collections--Remittance of Proceeds--Effect of Insolvency of Remitting Bank--Preference. Where a collecting bank on which a check is drawn accepts such check and charges the same to its depositor's account, said depositor at the time having to his credit sufficient funds to pay such check, and issues to the forwarding bank in payment thereof its draft drawn on another bank with which it has on deposit funds more than sufficient to pay such draft, the amount of the check represented by such draft is resolved into a trust fund in the hands of the bank. In such case the transaction is equivalent to the purchase of the draft with cash, and upon insolvency of the collecting and issuing bank, with the draft outstanding, the assets of the insolvent bank in the hands of the State Bank Commissioner are thus augmented, and where sufficient cash came into the hands of the Bank Commissioner, as liquidating agent of such insolvent bank, to liquidate such draft, upon presentation of a claim therefor the holder of such claim is entitled to be adjudged a preferred creditor.
C. B. Leedy, for plaintiff in error.
M. W. McKenzie, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court whereunder the application of H. S. Thomas to be adjudged as a preferred creditor of the Bank of Shattuck, insolvent, in the sum of $ 564.75 was denied. In the trial court the plaintiff in error was plaintiff and the defendant in error was defendant. As they thus appeared in the trial court, they will hereinafter be referred to. On July 23, 1924, plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant as liquidating agent for the Bank of Shattuck in the amount of $ 564.75, whereunder he requested that he be determined and adjudged by the defendant to be a preferred creditor of the bank in said sum. The facts upon which the claim was based are substantially as follows:
¶2 On May 5, 1924, one W. N. Mitchell, a depositor of the Bank of Shattuck, gave to plaintiff his check drawn on said bank in the sum of $ 564.75 in payment of certain merchandise purchased from plaintiff. On the same date plaintiff indorsed and deposited this check with the Bank of Vici for collection and remittance. The Bank of Vici credited the amount of the check to plaintiff's account. On May 6, 1924, the Bank of Vici transmitted the check to the Federal Reserve Bank of Oklahoma City for collection and remittance. On May 9, 1924, in like manner the Federal Reserve Bank presented the check to the Bank of Shattuck for payment and remittance which, together with several other items, aggregated the sum of $ 2,262.62. On the same date the Bank of Shattuck accepted the check, paid the same, and charged the amount thereof to Mitchell's account, said depositor at the time having to his credit sufficient funds to pay said check, and remitted therefor, including the other items, by its draft in favor of the Federal Reserve Bank drawn on the Union National Bank of Wichita, Wichita, Kan. On May 13, 1924, the Federal Reserve Bank presented the draft by letter to the Union National Bank for payment, which was refused. On the date of the issuance of the draft and presentation thereof for payment, the Bank of Shattuck had on deposit with the Union National Bank of Wichita more than sufficient funds to liquidate said draft. On the date of presentation of the draft for payment the Bank of Shattuck closed its doors, whereupon the defendant took charge of the bank and its assets, for liquidation. As a part of the assets of the bank there was cash in an amount much in excess of the amount of the draft. Upon refusal of payment of the draft by the Union National Bank, plaintiff was compelled to refund the Bank of Vici the amount of the check.
¶3 The defendant denied the application of plaintiff to be adjudged a preferred creditor and classified him as a general creditor. On October 3, 1924, plaintiff filed his claim in the form as presented to the defendant in the district court, where it was by the court treated as a petition. There were no other pleadings and therefore no response thereto by the defendant. At the trial on April 6, 1925, the parties proceeded as upon demurrer which raised the question of the sufficiency of the petition to entitle plaintiff to be adjudged a preferred creditor of the Bank of Shattuck in said sum of $ 564.75. On October 9, 1925, the court rendered judgment denying the contentions of plaintiff and affirmed the action of the defendant whereunder plaintiff was held to be a general creditor. Plaintiff contends that under the facts as above summarized he was entitled to be classified as a preferred creditor, and that the trial court erred in not so holding, whereas the defendant, without challenge of the facts thus set up, contends that they are not sufficient to take plaintiff out of the general creditor class, and that therefore the judgment of the trial court was correct and should be affirmed.
¶4 Subsequent to the trial of this case this court in Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward, 124 Okla. 185, 256 P. 43, laid down certain principles which, under the facts in the cause at bar, in our view are controlling and decisive of this appeal. By paragraph one of the syllabus in that case, this court held as follows:
"Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the State Bank Commissioner in charge of an insolvent bank, it is necessary to establish, first, that the claim in question is a trust fund; and, second, that the fund in some form was a part of the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First State Bank of Bristow v. O'bannon
...v. Sullivan, 123 Okla. 233, 253 P. 45; Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward, 124 Okla. 185, 256 P. 43; Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157, 261 P. 363; Bank of Commerce v. Ingram, 33 Okla. 46, 124 P. 64; State ex rel. v. Excello Feed Co., decided January 10, 1928, 131 Okla. ......
-
Independent School District No. 1 of Benewah County v. Diefendorf
... ... Bank, 45 Idaho 451, 262 P ... Checks ... drawn on bank are the same as payment by cash. (Skinner v ... Porter, supra; Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157, ... 261 P. 363; First State Bank v. O'Bannon, 130 Okla. 206, ... 266 P. 472.) ... Robert ... H. Elder for ... ...
-
Mothersead v. Harris
...of the assets of the bank and which passed into his hands as such State Bank Commissioner and which is a trust fund. Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157, 261 P. 363; First State Bank of Bristow et al. v. O'Bannon, 130 Okla. 206, 266 P. 472. ¶5 The agreed facts show that the two drafts in qu......
-
Moon Motor Car Co. v. State ex rel. Shull, Case Number: 19876
...that the fund in some form was a part of the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the Commissioner." Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157, 261 P. 363; Mothersead v. Harris, 148 Okla. 285, 298 P. 602. ¶12 It is clear from the above that since the deposit was a general deposit and......