Herndon v. Continental-American Bank & Trust Co.

50 F. Supp. 254, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2607
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedApril 3, 1943
DocketCiv. No. 504
StatusPublished

This text of 50 F. Supp. 254 (Herndon v. Continental-American Bank & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herndon v. Continental-American Bank & Trust Co., 50 F. Supp. 254, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2607 (W.D. La. 1943).

Opinion

DAWKINS, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s original petition was short, simply alleging that he was the owner of three policies of life insurance, issued by the Prudential Insurance Co. of America, numbered respectively, Nos. 5,018,012, 5,-229,937 and 5,229,938, each for the sum of $10,000, the first dated April 8, 1925, and the other two both on November 5th of the same year; that the defendant had possession of said policies, had received and was still receiving certain benefits therefrom; that the policies should be returned to plaintiff and the bank required to account for what it had received; and finally that plaintiff “does not know under what facts the defendant pretends to hold such policies, consequently plaintiff reserves all his rights, particularly the right to contest the validity of any contract, agreement, notes and other purported evidence of authority to withhold the said policies”. The prayer was for the relief stated.

Defendant, on June 26, 1941, answered admitting that it held the policies in question and was receiving certain benefits therefrom, under circumstances with which the plaintiff was entirely familiar; that they had been pledged or assigned to secure indebtedness amounting to many thousands of dollars; that, in spite of the assignments, plaintiff had contended that he had an interest therein, and “on March 9, 1934, the said Herndon by contract of sale, sold to Continental American Bank and Trust Co., Ray P. Oden and Paul M. Browne all his interest in the three policies (as well as the monthly disability benefit referred to in paragraph 8 of this answer) with the exception of the sum of $3,000 to be paid at the rate of $30 per month out of policy No. 5,299,937”; and that on November 27, 1935, the plaintiff had sold to C. P. Shows all “his right to the unpaid portion of the $3,000” and the latter in turn had transferred it to Oden, who then conveyed it to the defendant bank; and that on October 23, 1936, plaintiff, by letter bearing that date, had recognized and confirmed those transactions and obtained through attorneys E. W. and P. N. Browne an option to repurchase said policies for $8,500, and at the same time obtained a loan of $500. Defendant prayed that it be recognized as the owner of said policies and for judgment on a cross claim for $500 representing the loan made pursuant to the letter of October 23, 1936.

On December 25, 1941, defendant filed its motion for summary judgment, based upon the alleged sale of March 9, 1934, referred to above, the transfer of the monthly dis[255]*255ability benefits of $30 by plaintiff to Shows of October 14, 1935, and its later conveyance to defendant, and the letter of plaintiff to E. W. and P. N. Browne of October 23, 1936, which it claimed had been accepted and complied with by the defendant. Attached to the motion were the affidavit of Oden and P. M. Brown, together with photostatic copies of the various documents, which defendant claimed supported its right to relief. Prior thereto, on October 28, 1941, plaintiff had filed his own affidavit consisting of some 41 pages, in which he recited at length the history and circumstances under which defendant had come into possession of said policies (notwithstanding he had denied knowledge of these matters in his original petition), which is too long and complicated for summarizing at this point. The principal charges were that Oden and Brown had been the personal friends and confidential advisers of plaintiff and that the assignment of the two policies, issued November 5, 1925, on January 4, 1927, had been for the sole purpose of enabling Oden and Brown, “in event of plaintiff’s absence or illness, to make loans thereon to pay premiums;” but that in December 1927, when plaintiff sotight to make loans on the two policies, dated November 5, 1925, the checks to cover said loans were made payable to “James R. Herndon and the American National Bank and/or Bank and Trust Co. of Louisiana, assignee”, which was the first knowledge that plaintiff had that the assignments which he had signed “in blank” had been filled in so as to include the banks ; that plaintiff had protested to Oden and Brown about this but was advised by Oden “that inasmuch as whatever money may be needed for the payment of premiums, would, in all probability be borrowed from one of the said banks, affiant permit the assignments to stand as written”, and that as to other limitation in the assignments other than the purpose for which they were made “he had discussed the request with the agent for the Insurance Co. and was informed that said company would not permit such alteration of its assignment forms”, and that Oden assured plaintiff “that the said policies would be used only for the expressed purpose”, that is, to pay the premiums. Further, that plaintiff’s health had failed and he had been compelled to close out his business and go to California in January, 1930; and that because of his faith in “his confidential and trusted advisers Ray P. Oden”, the three policies were left in the latter’s “care, custody and * * * physical control” to be used solely for the purpose of paying premiums.

Plaintiff described numerous and extended transactions in which he, Oden Brown and the Banks had engaged over the years from 1925 until plaintiff went to California in 1930; also the taking over by the American National Bank of the American Bank & Trust Co., the sale thereafter by the former of its assets to the Commercial American Bank & Trust Co., and finally the change of name to Continental-American Bank & Trust Co., the present defendant. He traced and attacked the transactions under which defendant claims to have acquired the policies, and recited the extent and circumstances of his illness, which made him physically and mentally unfit to enter into the agreements upon which defendant relied for summary judgment. Many charges of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the officers and agents of the bank, including Oden and Brown, principally the former, were described.

On October 31, 1941, the motion for summary judgment was tried and submitted upon the affidavits and counter affidavits and exhibits, after oral argument, and briefs to be filed. The record reached the hands of the court about the middle of December, 1941, and on January 14th following the motion was denied. On the same day answer to the counterclaim was filed and on March 9, 1942, a supplemental reply thereto was also filed.

Trial on the merits started June 22, 1942, and was concluded on the 29th, except that it was left open to permit plaintiff to take the testimony of a doctor who had treated him in Los Angeles, California. The court reporter’s notes have not been transcribed, but briefs were filed and the record transmitted to this court on February 5, 1943, after the court had, at plaintiff’s request, agreed that it would attempt to decide the matter without a transcript of the testimony. It is therefore impossible to refer to the testimony of any particular witness except such as was taken by deposition, but the court will endeavor to dispose of the case upon its best recollection of what was said by the principal witnesses, together with the documentary evidence, which, as previously stated, is quite voluminous.

At the beginning we are confronted with certain settlements or compromises, which, unless they can be set aside, constitute a [256]*256bar to plaintiff’s demands. The first was the agreement of March 9, 1934, and the second, the transfer by Herndon to Shows of the interest which had been retained in one of the policies. These two documents are as follows:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 F. Supp. 254, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herndon-v-continental-american-bank-trust-co-lawd-1943.