Woodward v. ANACOSTIA BANK, No. 5515.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtMARTIN, Justice, and HITZ and GRONER, Associate Justices
Citation59 F.2d 1044
PartiesWOODWARD v. ANACOSTIA BANK.
Docket NumberNo. 5515.
Decision Date20 June 1932

59 F.2d 1044 (1932)

WOODWARD
v.
ANACOSTIA BANK.

No. 5515.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Argued May 31, 1932.

Decided June 20, 1932.


59 F.2d 1045

Arthur G. Lambert, Walter Casey, and George L. Hart, Jr., all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

George C. Gertman, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and HITZ and GRONER, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This appeal relates to a certain certificate for 45 shares of common stock of the Halloran-Judge Trust Company, Inc., of Salt Lake City, Utah. The certificate is held by appellee, the Anacostia Bank, as collateral for two promissory notes executed by Charles Loffler to the bank, whereas the appellant, John J. Woodward, claims to be the owner of the stock with right of immediate possession of the certificate free of all claims of the bank.

The case out of which the appeal grows was commenced in the lower court by a bill of complaint filed by Charles Loffler as plaintiff against John J. Woodward et al., as defendants. In the bill Loffler claimed that he had been conducting business under the name of Charles Loffler & Co., and had employed Woodward as bookkeeper and agent at a certain stipulated salary, and that while acting as such, Woodward had willfully failed to account for various sums of money received by him for plaintiff, and had been guilty of many acts of malfeasance, whereupon plaintiff prayed for a discovery, an accounting, and a recovery against Woodward. The defendant, Woodward, filed an answer and cross-bill wherein he denied that he had been an employee of Loffler, and alleged that he had been an equal partner with him in the business of Charles Loffler & Co. He denied all charges of malfeasance, and by way of cross-bill charged that at one time the partnership was in need of funds, and he had delivered the stock certificate now in question to the Anacostia Bank, as collateral security for a loan of $3,000 made by the bank to the firm; that it was agreed that the stock should not be used as collateral for any other loan; and that Loffler was to pay the loan and return the stock to Woodward; but that Loffler had failed to perform this agreement, and instead had borrowed an additional sum of $1,500 from the bank and used the stock as collateral; whereupon Woodward prayed that the Anacostia Bank be made a party defendant in the case, and that the stock certificate in question should be "relieved of all liens of the Anacostia Bank beyond the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Greenwich Collieries v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 92-3270
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 23, 1993
    ...indemnity in cases of faultless injury at the worksite and therefore should be interpreted liberally in favor of the claimant. Burris, 59 F.2d at 1044. "Accidents in industry are inevitable, and the enactment of compensation laws grew out of a general recognition of a duty by society to an ......
  • Maher Terminals, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, No. 92-3222
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 19, 1993
    ...Cir.1978); Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. OWCP, 988 F.2d 706 (7th Cir.1993). The genesis of the true doubt rule is found in Burris, 59 F.2d at 1044: The underlying purpose of all compensation laws is to provide money indemnity in case of injury where there is no assignable fault. Acciden......
  • Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Burris, No. 5512
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 20, 1932
    ...street on an intensely hot day. The official temperature reading having been taken from an elevation considerably above the street 59 F.2d 1044 and in the shade, it is fair to assume that in the unprotected street the heat was abnormal and far greater than the official reading would indicat......
3 cases
  • Greenwich Collieries v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 92-3270
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 23, 1993
    ...indemnity in cases of faultless injury at the worksite and therefore should be interpreted liberally in favor of the claimant. Burris, 59 F.2d at 1044. "Accidents in industry are inevitable, and the enactment of compensation laws grew out of a general recognition of a duty by society t......
  • Maher Terminals, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, No. 92-3222
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 19, 1993
    ...Cir.1978); Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. OWCP, 988 F.2d 706 (7th Cir.1993). The genesis of the true doubt rule is found in Burris, 59 F.2d at 1044: The underlying purpose of all compensation laws is to provide money indemnity in case of injury where there is no assignable fault. Acciden......
  • Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Burris, No. 5512
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 20, 1932
    ...street on an intensely hot day. The official temperature reading having been taken from an elevation considerably above the street 59 F.2d 1044 and in the shade, it is fair to assume that in the unprotected street the heat was abnormal and far greater than the official reading would indicat......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT