Case ID: nc_194/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Adame, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BANK OF VANCE, Receiver of Farmers and Merchants Bank, v. ETHEL D. CROWDER and R. B. CROWDER.
    (Filed 5 October, 1927.)
    1. Husband and Wife — Deeds and Conveyances — Gifts—Presumptions— Instructions.
    Where tbe cashier of a bank misappropriated its funds and used it as a part payment for lands to which he takes title in his wife, and there is no evidence tending to show that the wife repaid her husband or that it was repaid to the bank, it raises a presumption of a gift by the husband to his wife, which equity will set aside at the suit of the bank, and an instruction that the law presumed the gift is, upon the evidence, not erroneous.
    3. Witnesses — Bookkeeping—Experts—Banks and Banking — Meaning of Entries of Books of Bank — Embezzlement.
    An expert witness properly qualified may testify to entries made by its cashier upon the books of a bank, and their meaning tending to show his defalcation, when material to the inquiry. (See, also, Bank v. Grow Her, ante, 312.)
    
      Appeal by defendants from GracLy, J., at June Term, 1921, of VaNCE.
    Tbe verdict was as follows:
    1. Were tbe lands described in tbe complaint paid for, in whole or in part, by tbe money belonging to tbe Farmers and Merchants Bank, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.
    2. If so, what amount of money belonging to said bank was invested in said lands? Answer: $600.
    3. Is tbe plaintiff’s cause of action barred by tbe statute of limitations? Answer: No.
    
      Kittrell & Kittrell, Perry & Kittrell and J. P. & J. H. Zollicoffer for plaintiff.
    
    
      D. P. McDuffee and Thomas M. Pittman for defendants.
    
   Adame, J.

It was alleged by tbe plaintiff, and all tbe evidence tended to show, that R. B. Crowder, cashier of the Farmers and Merchants Bank, while heavily indebted to tbe bank, discounted a promissory note for $600, which was then its property, without consideration therefor, and deposited tbe amount of*tbe note to bis personal credit; that with this money be purchased from^J. A. Pilley and bis wife a lot containing three acres and a half; and that be bad tbe title thereto conveyed to bis wife, Ethel D. Crowder. In her answer Mrs. Crowder admits tbe purchase was not made with her money, and there is no evidence that she has repaid her husband or the bank. The defendants neither testified nor introduced any witness; and there was no evidence tending to rebut the presumption of a gift from tbe husband to tbe wife.

Tbe jury were instructed to answer tbe issues as they appear of record if they found tbe facts to be as testified to by all the witnesses. In this instruction we find no error. Admission of tbe testimony of the expert witness as to the entries found in the books kept by the cashier and their meaning was not improper. S. v. Hightower, 187 N. C., 307; Loan Asso. v. Davis, 192 N. C., 108. We have given attention to the other exceptions to the admission of evidence and to the judge’s charge and find in them no sufficient grounds for a new trial. The equitable doctrine upon which tbe relief afforded by tbe judgment is founded is set forth in Bank v. Ethel D. Crowder et al., ante, 312, and need not be repeated here. The record presents no adequate reason for disturbing tbe judgment.

No error.