Court Opinion

ID: 9653921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:59:02.104358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:03.673686
License: Public Domain

*455On Petition For Rehearing.
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
As stated in our former opinion, the present appeal involved five promissory notes executed by the Custer County Sheep Company, aggregating $9,000, and two promissory notes executed by Butterfield Bros., aggregating $8,160. The court below found that these several loans were in excess of the amounts allowed by law and that the loans to the Sheep Company were improvidently made. We are satisfied with the conclusion heretofore announced as to the Sheep Company loans; but the testimony relating to the Butterfield Bros, loans is indefinite and unsatisfactory. At the time the two last promissory notes were executed, Butterfield Bros, were already indebted to the bank on account of other loans, evidenced by promissory notes, in exeess of the amount allowed by law, so that on the face of the bank records the last two loans were excessive. But it appears from the testimony that, when the last two notes were executed,, a cashier’s cheek was issued for the amount of the two notes;. that the cashier’s eheek was retained by the bank for a period of several days; and that it was then canceled and two of the earlier notes taken up and paid. Why the transaction took this form is not explained, but there is a statement in the record, by way of recital of facts, that the last two notes were renewals only. If this be true, and the reeord does not show the contrary, the renewal notes did not increase the indebtedness of the makers to the bank, and the recovery of the amounts thereof against the appellant was unauthorized.
The decree of the court below will therefore be reduced to the sum of $9,000. As thus modified, the decree is affirmed, with costs to the appellant. In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.