Case ID: kan_112/html/0603-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BueCH, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 24,153.
    E. G. Kime et al., Appellees, v. Martin Ladd, as Receiver, etc., Appellant.
    
    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
    Banks and Banking — Deposits Accepted After Insolvency Recoverable as ■ Trust Fund. A bank is guilty of fraud on a general depositor in accepting his deposit after the bank has become hopelessly insolvent and has committed an act of insolvency, and the depositor may recover from the receiver of the bank to the extent the deposit augmented the funds coming into the hands of the receiver.
    Appeal from Montgomery district court; Joseph W. Holdren, judge.
    Opinion filed January 6, 1923.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. E. Ziegler, and A. M. Etchen, both of Coffeyville, for the appellant.
    
      A. R. Lamb, and Clement A. Reed, both of Coffeyville, for the appellees.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

BueCH, J.:

The action was one by the depositors in a bank, to recover from the receiver the amounts of their deposits, as trust funds. The plaintiffs prevailed, and the defendant appeals.

' On January 18, 1921, the bank was hopelessly insolvent, and a draft for $52,000, drawn by the county treasurer against his account in the bank, went to protest. On the next day the bank continued to do business, and accepted the deposits sued for. Its conduct amounted to a fraud on the depositors. (20 A. L. R., 1206, annotation; 7 C. J. 730; 3 R. C. L. 557.) The proof was that the assets which came into the hands of the receiver were augmented by the full amounts of the deposits. That being true, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the deposits, as trust funds. (Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, ante p. 23, 209 Pac. 824.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.