Case Name: BANK OF BROOKINGS, Respondent, v. THE AURORA GRAIN COMPANY, et al., Appellants
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1922-01-30
Citations: 45 S.D. 113
Docket Number: File No. 4698
Parties: BANK OF BROOKINGS, Respondent, v. THE AURORA GRAIN COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
Judges: AN'DE'RSON, J., pot sitting.
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 113–115

Head Matter:
BANK OF BROOKINGS, Respondent, v. THE AURORA GRAIN COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
(186 N. W. 563.)
(File No. 4698.
Opinion filed January 30, 1922.)
Bailee of Mortgaged! Gi*ain, With Notice of Mortgagees’ Claim, Conversion by Bailee, Bankruptcy Order to Turn Over Fund Bailee’s Duty as Trustee — Rehearing, Minority. Opinion Adopted by Court.
On rehearing, dissenting opinion on former decision (43 S. D. 591, 181 N. W. 909), is adopted as the opinion of the court, in effect holding that a grain company, bailee of .plain- ] tiff’s grain with notice -by mortgagees ■ of their .claim, and who afterwards converted the grain, by selling same in due course of business, was, as trustee of the fund, bound. either to set up the mortgagees’ claim in response to an’ order of the mortgagor’s referee in bankruptcy'requiring bailees to turn over to trustee in bankruptcy said furid, and was also, as said trustee, bound either to assert the rights of the mortgagees thereto or to turn the fund into court under provision of Sec. 2324, Code 1919, so that adverse claimants thereto may have their rights adjudicated; and, having failed to do so, they cannot defend against mortgagees’ suit for conversion. r
Anderson, J., not sitting.
On rehearing.
Dissenting opinion on the former hearing and -decision, adopted as the opinion of the court’; and judgment appealed from affirmed.
Waddel & Dougherty, for Appellants.
Hall & Purdy, for Respondent.
. Appellant cited: Laverty v. iSnethen,' 68 N. Y. 522; Esmay v. Fanning, 9 Barb. 176; Cornwell-v. Jager, 21 Ind. App. no, 51 N. E. 733.
Respondent cited: Catlett v. 'Stokes (B. D.) 145 N. W. 554; Willard v. Monarch .Elevator Co. (N. D.) 87 N. W. 996.

Opinion:
WFIITING, J.
This cause is before us -upon rehearing. ' Our former opinion, including the dissenting views of a minority of this court, will be found reported in Bank of Brookings v. Aurora Grain Co., 43 S. D. 591, 181 N. W. 909. After further consideration of the issue presented on this appeal, the majority of the court are convinced that the views expressed in the dissenting opinion on the former hearing were in all things correct. We therefore adopt such dissenting opinion as the opin ion of the court; and the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
AN'DE'RSON, J., pot sitting.