Court Opinion

ID: 9811292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:15:49.213978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:39.385837
License: Public Domain

*776Connor, J.,
dissenting: An examination of tbe record in. tbis case, containing all of tbe evidence, forces me to tbe conclusion tbat, taking tbe whole evidence as true, tbe plaintiff bank was put upon notice tbat Hall and Miss Parbam were “biting” checks; tbat there was no fund, upon which these checks were drawn, and tbis must have been known to tbe officers of tbe bank. If tbe check sued upon in tbis action was tbe only one drawn by Hall, I should concur in tbe opinion of tbe Court, but it is only one of a series of checks, all of which, when considered together with other admitted circumstances, show to my mind conclusively tbat tbe account is made up of a number of cheeks, all of which were drawn in accordance with tbe system of “kiting” carried on by tbe parties. Tbe authorities cited in defendant’s brief establish its contention tbat tbe checks were not drawn against any fund in bank, but upon other checks crossing each other in tbe mail for tbe purpose of maintaining an apparent balance. I am therefore compelled to dissent from tbe conclusion reached by tbe majority of tbe Court. In consequence of tbe late day of tbe term upon which tbe opinion is filed, I am unable to set out in full and discuss tbe evidence. I can therefore only express, with all possible deference, my dissent.
Hoke, J., concurs in dissenting opinion.