The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-09-14
SMITH CLAIMS BIG
DAMAGE FROM BANK
FIRST NATIONAL REFUSED TO
HONOR cHECKs-PLAINTIFF AL.
LEGEs INJURY TO BUSINESS
AND REPUTATION.

Yesterday in the city court P. G. Smith
filed two suits against the First Ma
tional bank of Birmingham, one for $4,000
damages and one for SIT, 761. 10, alleged to
be money due on account.
The suits are the result of the action
of the bank in Selling upon the funds
which Smith had in the bank at the time
of the alleged defalcatons of Former Pay
ing Teller Alex Chisolm.
In the $4,000 suit the plaintiff, by his
in his complaint that he drew two checks
upon the First National bank. one for
the sum of sS56O.56 and the other for
the sum Of 50. 400 SO, both of which were
dishonored whereby the credit of the
plaintiff was injured to the extent claimed
as damages.
The complaint contains six counts, but
the gist of them all is contained in count
one, as follows:
plaintiff, p. G. Smith, claims of de-
PENDANT. First National bank of Birming-
ham, Ala, a national banking association
under the laws of the United States of
America, the sum of Fifty Thousa nd
($5O,OOo) Dollars, for that on, to-wlt the
2Srd day Of August, 1906, the plaintiff had
on deposit with defendant which was then
and there a bank of deposit. the sum of
s., $50. 56 as a general deposit and subject
to the check of the plaintiff, and on. to-
wit, the day aforesaid plaintiff had on
deposit with defendant the further sum
of 1920. SO as general deposit, which
was carried on the books of said bank
in the name of p. G. Smith, No. l. and
was subject to check by plaintiff in the
name of p G. Smith No. 1, each of said
deposits being the property of plaintiff
individually but the last mentioned Of
said deposits was being kept apart from
the other said deposits for the reason
that the first of said deposits was for
the private and personal account of the
plaintiff, and the last mentioned of said
deposits was for plaintiffs business ac-
count and the plaintiff on the day afore-
said being a trader and being engaged
in the business of broker for the pur-
chase and sale of stocks, cotton, and
grain for future delivery, and being we'll
known by the defendant to be such trader
and broker drew a check on the first of
said accounts which was in words and
figures as follows:
Birmingham Ala, August 2S 1906.
The First National Bank of Birming
ham:
Pay to the order of myself Eight Thou
sand Eve Hundred and Sixty and 56-10O
Dollars.
(signed). :" p. G. SMITH
(Which said check having been duly en-
dorsed by plaintiff was deposited by plain
tiff with the Traders National Bank of
Birmingham and the amount of said
check was credited to the account of
plaintiff with said Traders National bank
and at the same time plaintiff drew a
check on the second of said accounts,
which was in words and figures as fol-
lows:
Birmingham, Ala, Aug. %, 1906.
THE First National Bank of Birmingham.
: PAY to the order of myself nine thou
sand, two hundred and 6S-1OO dollars.
C'Slgned) /. P. G. SMITH No. 1,
which said check was duly endorsed by
plaintiff and was likewise deposited with
said Traders National bank, and to the
credit of plaintiff and PLAINTIFF AYERS that
each of said checks was thereupon duly
presented by said Traders National bank
of Birmingham to said First National
Bank of Birmingham and payment de-
manded thereof. but such payment was
refused and each of said checks dishonor-
ed by said First National Bank Of Bir-
mngham, the following reason being as
signed by the president of said First Ma
tional bank for the non-payment of said
checks, and no other reason being given
for such non-payment: Refused for rea
sons given by me in letter addressed to
p. G. Smith on the 14th inst and there
upon each Of said checks was duly. pro-
tested by notary public and the amount
of each of said checks was charged by the
Traders National bank against PLAINTIFFS
account with said Traders National bank;
and plaintiff AYERS that the reasons given
by the president of said First National
bank in said letter addressed TO plaintiff
were that plaintiff was indebted to said
First National bank in an amount exceed
ing the amount of plaintiffs deposits as
aforesaid, all of which was false, as de-
PENDANT well knew at the time that de-
PENDANT refused to pay said checks plain
tiff not being indebted to said First Ma
tional bank on the day of the date Of said
letter. or at any other time subsequent
thereto, in any sum whatever; and plain
tiff AYERS that as a proximate result Of the
o IL
checks as 1t was it's duty to do, plaintiff
was damaged and injured in his credit as
a trader and business man and in his
business reputation and standing and has
a BROMRc.