The true Democrat. [volume] (Bayou Sara [La.]) 1892-1928, 1919-02-01
COPY or DECISION HERE

} on file at his Office In the court house
copy Of the decision Of the Supreme
Court OF Louisiana handed down b,
Justice ONiell. Jan in the suit o
the felieana Bank 4 Trust Go. VI
City Bank a Trust 60. tof Mobiiel Ia
appeal from the cath Judicial District
Court. Chas. l.. Mnnson. Judge, ad hoe
| The judgment OF the lower court In
favor Of the plaintiff was affirmed. and
makes the defendant bank liable for
the SIS 900 saed for. and increases
BY that amount the sum which aeenes
to the creditors Of the Felieiana Bank
la Trust Co In Liquidation
| The judgment rendered Is too long
for reproduction Ia these columns. but
se shhlI be prepared to furnish a print.
ed copy In pamphlet form, 81 ten cents
each, provided we get enough orders
to justify oar setting the matter In
TYPE,
Briefly the deposit sued for vas the
proceeds of loan made by the de-
fendarl 10 the plaintiff bank on prom,
| issory note IN favor Of defendant dated
| April I. 1918 Tie reciprocal debts Of
| equal amount were one represented
by the note payable on demand and
the other represented BY the deposit
subject 10 check when the bank failed
The defendant In this sui, pleaded that
he bank examiner was estopped by
his having retained the cancelled note
which the defendant had returned 10
the felteiana Bank few days after
tts failure When the Examiner took
charge az iiqlidator he made prompt
dema 4 on the city bank a. Trust Co. |
Tor I1ymeai OF The deposit The bank
replied that III, fund had been ap- |
Piled 10 the payment OF the note and |
that the eancelee note had been return. |
ed
II appears that the loan was made
on the 18th Of April and no part Of the
moaey Was ever drawn. or used BY ths
borrower The insolyent bank was
closed on the 2sth of August that year,
the state bark examiner was then
notified 10 take charge Of and liqui.
date the bank ORe The next day the
defendant being inf formed Of the banks
failure applied the deposit TO the pay.
ment Of the note.
The district court was OF the opinion
that the defendant could not legally
pay or estinxnish the debt due To the
bank IN liquidation with a debt due BY
the insolvent institution, From the
Judgment In favor of the plaintiff, the
defendant appealed
The court holds that il vas then too
late for the debt due hy the City Bank
10 be ex'insnished by compensation
'r seton against the debt due by the
1soiVe1i institution II was too late |
or The City Bank 10 pay or compeh. +
'ate itself hy returning an asset of the
nsoIseat bank without oousent of the
,ther creditors.
The question To be decided is not
shether the defendant might have ex.
PRESSED that right legally while the
Bank was going concern but whether
he officers II the Bank could legally
i've authority TO one Of the banksI
rsditors 10 ray himself with the
ranks reserve fund 10 the prejudice
T all other creditors IN the event OF
allure of the Bank Our answer 10
hat, to that extent. the mandate or
greement WAS contrary tn public poi .
~ and was void
The defendant plea was that thte
lqnidator should he estopped because
- took ne further action in the mat I
~ until his attorney advised tina, suit II
honld be brought to recover the de. q
osit j
The Supreme Court holds that The
iqutdator's failure TO offer promptly Il
o return thte cancelled note can .
ot be considered ratification OF its
aymen' with The banks reserve fund
10 wa acting cautiously and on adj
ice of counsel He had no authority u
o ratIfy and did not pretend 20 rati- u
y-an illegal extInguishment of q u
ebs due TO the inselvent bank His
Hence In the latter did no, prejudice Y
he defendant In any way There Ia u
therefore, no merit In plea OF es'oppel q
he Judgment appealed from IL az o
rmed +"
---~-------1---~-------~-~
N Van Tromo and family have meY. '