Hogin v. Central Nat. Bank

Eighth Circuit

Hogin v. Central Nat. Bank

223 F. 325, 138 C.C.A. 587, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1718

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 1915

DocketNo. 4208

StatusPublished

This text of 223 F. 325 (Hogin v. Central Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hogin v. Central Nat. Bank, 223 F. 325, 138 C.C.A. 587, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1718 (8th Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

ADAMS, Circuit Judge.

This was an appeal by the trustee of the estate of the Jones Bros. Mercantile Company in bankruptcy, from an order of the District Court allowing a claim of $10,000 in favor of the Central National Bank against the estate of the bankrupt. The facts of the case and the questions of law are the same as those involved in the case of Flower, Trustee, v. Central National Bank, 223 Fed. 323, just decided by this court, to which reference is made for a more comprehensive statement.

A loan of $25,000 was negotiated by L. M. Jones, the president of the Mercantile Company, and a high officer of the Jones Dry Goods Company, for the benefit of those two corporations. Two notes for the total sum of $25,000 were signed by L. M. Jones and his brother, J. L. Jones, who was also a high officer of both companies, and the proceeds of their discount were divided between the mercantile company and the dry goods company, as directed by L. M. Jones at the time he negotiated the loan, in the proportion of ten twenty-fifths, or $10,000 to the mercantile company and fifteen twenty-fifths to the dry goods company.

The issue of fact below was and here is whether the loan was made to the two companies in the proportion just stated or whether it was made to the individual signers of the notes, leaving it to them to make such ultimate disposition of the proceeds as they desired to make. The trial judge found that the loan was actually made to the two companies in the proportions stated, and that the taking of the individual notes of the executive officers was an expedient resorted to for busi[326]*326ness reasons, and allowed the claim of $10,000 against the estate of the mercantile company. We think this conclusion of fact was undoubtedly correct. The same questions of law were debated in this casé as were relied on by the trustee in the two cases of Flower, Trustee, v. Commercial Trust Company, 223 Fed. 318, and Flower, Trustee, v. Central National Bank, 223 Fed. 323, just decided, and for the reasons expressed in the opinions in those cases we think there was no legal obstacle to the allowance of this claim against the estate of the bankrupt.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

ADAMS, Circuit Judge.

This was an appeal by the trustee of the estate of the Jones Bros. Mercantile Company in bankruptcy, from an order of the District Court allowing a claim of $10,000 in favor of the Central National Bank against the estate of the bankrupt. The facts of the case and the questions of law are the same as those involved in the case of Flower, Trustee, v. Central National Bank, 223 Fed. 323, just decided by this court, to which reference is made for a more comprehensive statement.

A loan of $25,000 was negotiated by L. M. Jones, the president of the Mercantile Company, and a high officer of the Jones Dry Goods Company, for the benefit of those two corporations. Two notes for the total sum of $25,000 were signed by L. M. Jones and his brother, J. L. Jones, who was also a high officer of both companies, and the proceeds of their discount were divided between the mercantile company and the dry goods company, as directed by L. M. Jones at the time he negotiated the loan, in the proportion of ten twenty-fifths, or $10,000 to the mercantile company and fifteen twenty-fifths to the dry goods company.

The issue of fact below was and here is whether the loan was made to the two companies in the proportion just stated or whether it was made to the individual signers of the notes, leaving it to them to make such ultimate disposition of the proceeds as they desired to make. The trial judge found that the loan was actually made to the two companies in the proportions stated, and that the taking of the individual notes of the executive officers was an expedient resorted to for busi[326]*326ness reasons, and allowed the claim of $10,000 against the estate of the mercantile company. We think this conclusion of fact was undoubtedly correct. The same questions of law were debated in this casé as were relied on by the trustee in the two cases of Flower, Trustee, v. Commercial Trust Company, 223 Fed. 318, and Flower, Trustee, v. Central National Bank, 223 Fed. 323, just decided, and for the reasons expressed in the opinions in those cases we think there was no legal obstacle to the allowance of this claim against the estate of the bankrupt.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 F. 325, 138 C.C.A. 587, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogin-v-central-nat-bank-ca8-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack