Opinion ID: 1653249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether The Court Erred In Dismissing Appellant's Bailment Cause Of Action

Text: Reynolds argues that because the checks were endorsed For Deposit Only, a bailment was created between Reynolds and the Bank. Reynolds contends that due to the restrictive endorsement, the deposits were for a special purpose. As we have noted previously, general deposits of money in a bank merely create a debtor/creditor relationship between a bank and its customer. Only if money is placed in the bank for the purpose of safekeeping or on an understanding that the bank shall act as bailee, does the deposit becomes a special deposit and the bank becomes an agent or bailee with no right to use the money except pursuant to the terms of the bailment agreement. Lasley v. Bank of Northeast Arkansas, 4 Ark. App. 42, 627 S.W.2d 261 (1982). Here there was no evidence of a bailment agreement between the parties, instead, there is only evidence that this was a general account where the Bank had a right to use the money on deposit and commingle it with its own funds. Thus, the chancellor did not err by dismissing the cause of action based on bailment.