Citizens National Bank of Beaumont v. Francis

427 S.W.2d 645, 1968 Tex. App. LEXIS 3092
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 18, 1968
DocketNo. 6951
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 427 S.W.2d 645 (Citizens National Bank of Beaumont v. Francis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Citizens National Bank of Beaumont v. Francis, 427 S.W.2d 645, 1968 Tex. App. LEXIS 3092 (Tex. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

PARKER, Justice.

Citizens National Bank of Beaumont (hereinafter referred to as Bank) instituted this suit against W. J. Francis to recover [646]*646on two promissory notes, one dated April 15, 1964 in the sum of $2,550.00 and the other dated June 11, 1964 in the sum of $480.00. Francis admitted executing the notes in favor of the Eank. By way of cross action for damages, Francis alleged that the Bank wilfully, wantonly and maliciously, and without probable cause, refused to hon- or five certain checks drawn on the Beaumont Chimney Co., Special Account, when there were sufficient funds on deposit to cover the same, asserting that by reason of such refusal to honor the checks, Francis had been subjected to criminal prosecution, that his reputation had been damaged in the sum of $50,000.00, that he was entitled to $300,000.00 punitive damages, and that his health and earnings had been affected to his damage in the sum of $500,000.00. The proceeds of the two notes were deposited in said Bank to the credit of Beaumont Chimney Co. Bank answered by general denial and alleged that the account was open for a special purpose, to-wit, to finance accounts for labor and material to be used in the performance of a contract between W. J. Francis, d/b/a Beaumont Chimney Co., and the City of Alvin, which contract had been assigned to the Bank as security for the loans evidenced by the notes sued upon. Bank asserted that it acted in good faith and in the belief that it was exercising its rights under the understanding and agreement with Francis with respect to the drawing of checks on the account and that the checks had been returned and stamped “purpose not authorized.”

Trial was before a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence, Bank filed its motion for directed verdict on the main action for recovery of the sums due on the promissory notes as well as motions for directed verdict against plaintiff on his cross action. The motion for directed verdict for the sum of $2,651.44 on the notes was granted and there is no appeal from that part of the judgment. Bank’s motion for directed verdict on the cross action was overruled. Judgment was entered upon the verdict of the jury, finding that the actual damage to Francis on his cross action was $40,000.00 and the exemplary damages to Francis on his cross action was $10,000.00, allowing a credit of $2,651.-44 together with interest thereon to be deducted from the $50,000.00 recovery of Francis against the Bank on his cross action.

Francis admitted in open court that he was justly indebted to the Bank in the sum of $2,651.44, together with interest thereon, this being the indebtedness represented by his notes .to the Bank. There is no appeal from this part of the judgment.

As to each of the checks the bank refused to honor, special issues were submitted similar to Special Issue No. 1 as to each of such checks. Special Issue No. 1:

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the failure of Citizens National Bank to honor the check dated June 13, 1964, payable to W. J. Francis, in the sum of $85.67 was wrongful?

The court defined the term “wrongful” as follows:

By the term “wrongful”, as used in this Charge, is meant in bad faith and without any justifiable cause.

The jury’s affirmative answers to the issues were deemed sufficient to support the recovery of not only actual but exemplary damages. No additional issues were submitted as a predicate for the recovery of exemplary damages. Accordingly, the entire judgment of the trial court hinges on the findings of these issues. The basic point of error before this court is whether or not the evidence raised the issue that the Bank’s failure to honor the checks was “in bad faith and without any justifiable cause.”

On April 14, 1964, Francis opened an account with the Bank in the name of Beaumont Chimney Co., Special Account, depositing $2,500.00, being cash proceeds from his note of $2,550.00, payable to such Bank. His contract with the City of Alvin was assigned as collateral security to the Bank. Prior to that date, he had done no business [647]*647with the Bank. This was an account for special purposes, with a special agreement pertaining to that account. Francis testified:

A. There was an agreement that some officer would have to approve the check if I spent it on anything besides the job, I’d have to bring the check in personally; otherwise, if I said wages was what it was for and it was spent for the job, that was all that was necessary. Now, that covers a lot of territory, that there yes or no business.
Q. There was an agreement that some officer would have to approve it?
A. If I wrote the check otherwise — other than my job, yes. If I wrote — if I wrote you a check, I would have to get it approved by the bank before I could cash it, and I had to go in personally to do that.
Q. Now, you had a contract at that time with the City of Alvin, did you not?
A. I did.
Q. A contract to do what kind of work ?
A. To sandblast and repaint the inside of 100-gallon water storage tank.
Q. How long was it contemplated that it would take to do that job?
A. Approximately ten days.
Q. Did you start work on it?
A. I did.
O. Did you agree with the fact that you would complete the work ?
A. I did.
Q. That was part of the agreement, was it not, that—
A. It was.
Q. — you would start work for the City of Alvin and you would complete it ?
A. It was.
Q. The reason for that agreement was that that was where the bank was going to get repaid on this loan ?
A. It was.
Q. Did you ever complete that contract ? A. No, sir.
Q. When did you start work on it?
A. About the middle of April — somewhere around April the 10th.
Q. About when did you start?
A. Somewhere around April the 10th.
Q. 1964?
A. 1964, yes, sir.
Q. How long did you work in April?
A. Until about the 24th of April — between the 24th and the 28th.
Q. Did you become ill at that time ?
A. I did.
Q. And went to the hospital?
A. I did.
Q. And what happened to the job in April after you became ill ? Did work go on?
A. No, sir. The job came at a standstill because my whole crew was ill.
Q. Did you spend all the money in that account there in April ?
A. I did. In fact, I overdrawed the account Seventy-something Dollars.
Q.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hill v. Citizens National Bank of Dallas
495 S.W.2d 615 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
427 S.W.2d 645, 1968 Tex. App. LEXIS 3092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-national-bank-of-beaumont-v-francis-texapp-1968.