Ellis Weaving Mills, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank of Spartansburg, S.C

Fourth Circuit

Ellis Weaving Mills, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank of Spartansburg, S.C

184 F.2d 43, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3043

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 1950

Docket6071

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 F.2d 43 (Ellis Weaving Mills, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank of Spartansburg, S.C) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellis Weaving Mills, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank of Spartansburg, S.C, 184 F.2d 43, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3043 (4th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This civil action 'was instituted in the United States District Court for the Western District of South Carolina by the plaintiff-appellant against the bank, defendantappellee, to recover the sum of $4,192.28, alleged to have been erroneously paid by the bank, in honoring certain checks, out of funds in the bank deposited to the plaintiff’s credit.

As was stated- in the- opinion of the District Judge, 91 F.Supp. 944:

“The checks were drawn on the defendant bank by Catherine Culbertson, who, at the times these checks were issued and cashed, was the President and General Manager of plaintiff and its sole authorized agent to sign checks in plaintiff’s behalf, and had been since its incorporation. The checks were made payable to various existing persons, principally■ to employees of plaintiff,' to whom they were never intended to be delivered, and to whom they were not delivered. Instead Mrs Culbertson, plaintiff’s chief executive officer, endorsed the names of the ostensible payees on the backs of the checks and either cashed them or caused them to be cashed at the defendant bank or at some convenient mercantile establishment. The ’funds so received on -said checks, as it is claimed by plaintiff, were privately retained by Mrs. Culbertson, its President and General Manager, or otherwise disposed of by hef.”

The District Judge held that there was no material issue of fact Which required submission to the jury, and granted defendant’s motion for a summary judgment in its favor. Plaintiff has duly appealed to us.

We think the judgment below is clearly right and must be affirmed. The opinion below discusses the case so tho,roughly and so completely that we see no reason for adding anything to that opinion, which is, accordingly, adopted as the opinion of our court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This civil action 'was instituted in the United States District Court for the Western District of South Carolina by the plaintiff-appellant against the bank, defendantappellee, to recover the sum of $4,192.28, alleged to have been erroneously paid by the bank, in honoring certain checks, out of funds in the bank deposited to the plaintiff’s credit.

As was stated- in the- opinion of the District Judge, 91 F.Supp. 944:

“The checks were drawn on the defendant bank by Catherine Culbertson, who, at the times these checks were issued and cashed, was the President and General Manager of plaintiff and its sole authorized agent to sign checks in plaintiff’s behalf, and had been since its incorporation. The checks were made payable to various existing persons, principally■ to employees of plaintiff,' to whom they were never intended to be delivered, and to whom they were not delivered. Instead Mrs Culbertson, plaintiff’s chief executive officer, endorsed the names of the ostensible payees on the backs of the checks and either cashed them or caused them to be cashed at the defendant bank or at some convenient mercantile establishment. The ’funds so received on -said checks, as it is claimed by plaintiff, were privately retained by Mrs. Culbertson, its President and General Manager, or otherwise disposed of by hef.”

The District Judge held that there was no material issue of fact Which required submission to the jury, and granted defendant’s motion for a summary judgment in its favor. Plaintiff has duly appealed to us.

We think the judgment below is clearly right and must be affirmed. The opinion below discusses the case so tho,roughly and so completely that we see no reason for adding anything to that opinion, which is, accordingly, adopted as the opinion of our court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F.2d 43, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-weaving-mills-inc-v-citizens-southern-nat-bank-of-spartansburg-ca4-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack