Close v. Fulton, Supt. of Banks

Ohio Court of Appeals

Close v. Fulton, Supt. of Banks

184 N.E. 22, 44 Ohio App. 165, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 332, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 277

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 5, 1932

DocketNo 2698

StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.E. 22 (Close v. Fulton, Supt. of Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Close v. Fulton, Supt. of Banks, 184 N.E. 22, 44 Ohio App. 165, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 332, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 277 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

*333 LLOYD, J.

Plaintiff contends that the Dorn check of $10,000.00 was deposited for and received by The Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company for collection and that since it was not paid until after the bank had closed, the amount thereof should be adjudged to be a preferred claim and ordered paid as such. The evidence indisputably shows that for many years prior to August 15, 1931, Close had continuously maintained a commercial account at The Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company, and that during all of that time he had been accustomed to and had exercised the privilege of drawing checks thereon without regard to whether the deposits from time to time made by him consisted of cash or of checks or other negotiable paper and without regard to whether the same were to be forwarded for collection or had or had not in fact been paid. In the instant case the Dorn check of $10,000.00 was deposited for the express purpose of creating a balance sufficient to pay the $9,000.00 check drawn the day before in favor of The Lloyd Bro’s. Company as well as to pay other checks drawn by Close on August 14th and 15th, and the checks so drawn were honored by The Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company before payment of the Dorn check by the Sandusky bank upon which it was drawn.

In view of the foregoing facts, we conclude that whatever the character of the deposit when made, the parties by then-subsequent acts and conduct fixed their relationship to this particular deposit as that of debtor and creditor, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the preference sought.

Decree accordingly.

RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

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

*333 LLOYD, J.

Plaintiff contends that the Dorn check of $10,000.00 was deposited for and received by The Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company for collection and that since it was not paid until after the bank had closed, the amount thereof should be adjudged to be a preferred claim and ordered paid as such. The evidence indisputably shows that for many years prior to August 15, 1931, Close had continuously maintained a commercial account at The Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company, and that during all of that time he had been accustomed to and had exercised the privilege of drawing checks thereon without regard to whether the deposits from time to time made by him consisted of cash or of checks or other negotiable paper and without regard to whether the same were to be forwarded for collection or had or had not in fact been paid. In the instant case the Dorn check of $10,000.00 was deposited for the express purpose of creating a balance sufficient to pay the $9,000.00 check drawn the day before in favor of The Lloyd Bro’s. Company as well as to pay other checks drawn by Close on August 14th and 15th, and the checks so drawn were honored by The Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company before payment of the Dorn check by the Sandusky bank upon which it was drawn.

In view of the foregoing facts, we conclude that whatever the character of the deposit when made, the parties by then-subsequent acts and conduct fixed their relationship to this particular deposit as that of debtor and creditor, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the preference sought.

Decree accordingly.

RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.E. 22, 44 Ohio App. 165, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 332, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/close-v-fulton-supt-of-banks-ohioctapp-1932.