In Re Canal Bank Trust Company

Louisiana Court of Appeal

In Re Canal Bank Trust Company

155 So. 266, 1934 La. App. LEXIS 757

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 11, 1934

DocketNo. 14868.

StatusPublished

This text of 155 So. 266 (In Re Canal Bank Trust Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Canal Bank Trust Company, 155 So. 266, 1934 La. App. LEXIS 757 (La. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

On February 19, 1932, Thomas J. Ferguson deposited with the Canal Bank for collection five interest coupons of $50 each and one of $25, which had been detached from bonds issued by Stovall Properties, Inc. These coupons were payable March 1, 1933, at the Canal Bank, paying agents for Stovall Properties, Inc. Funds had been deposited with the Canal Bank by the Stovall Properties, Inc., and were available on March 1st, the due date of the coupons, but for some reason not disclosed by the record a credit was not made to the account of Ferguson until March 21, 1933. In the meanwhile the Canal Bank and other banks in the city of New Orleans were closed on March 2, 1933, reopened again on a restricted basis on March 3, 1933, and the i Canal Bank finally placed in liquidation by the State Bank Examiner on May 20, 1933. See In re Canal Bank & Trust Company in Liquidation, Intervention of E. C. Palmer & Co. (La. App.) 154 So. 498.

The object of this intervention, which was filed on November 27, 1933, is to compel the liquidators of the bank to pay over to inter-vener, Thomas J. Ferguson, the face value of the coupons, $275, with preference and priority in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 63 of 1926. The liquidators oppose intervener’s claim on the ground that the coupons were deposited with the bank for payment and not for collection, and that therefore the relation between the depositor and the bank was that of debtor and creditor and not that of principal and agent.

• The only distinction we can see between this case and the case considered by us in Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. in Liquidation, Intervention of Palmer & Co., supra, is that in this case the bank was the paying agent of the items deposited with it. This we believe to be a distinction without a difference, and are of the opinion that this case, like the Palmer Case, is controlled by the authority of S. E. Hall, Inc., v. Farmers’ Trust & Savings Bank, 177 La. 659, 148 So. 909.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

On February 19, 1932, Thomas J. Ferguson deposited with the Canal Bank for collection five interest coupons of $50 each and one of $25, which had been detached from bonds issued by Stovall Properties, Inc. These coupons were payable March 1, 1933, at the Canal Bank, paying agents for Stovall Properties, Inc. Funds had been deposited with the Canal Bank by the Stovall Properties, Inc., and were available on March 1st, the due date of the coupons, but for some reason not disclosed by the record a credit was not made to the account of Ferguson until March 21, 1933. In the meanwhile the Canal Bank and other banks in the city of New Orleans were closed on March 2, 1933, reopened again on a restricted basis on March 3, 1933, and the i Canal Bank finally placed in liquidation by the State Bank Examiner on May 20, 1933. See In re Canal Bank & Trust Company in Liquidation, Intervention of E. C. Palmer & Co. (La. App.) 154 So. 498.

The object of this intervention, which was filed on November 27, 1933, is to compel the liquidators of the bank to pay over to inter-vener, Thomas J. Ferguson, the face value of the coupons, $275, with preference and priority in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 63 of 1926. The liquidators oppose intervener’s claim on the ground that the coupons were deposited with the bank for payment and not for collection, and that therefore the relation between the depositor and the bank was that of debtor and creditor and not that of principal and agent.

• The only distinction we can see between this case and the case considered by us in Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. in Liquidation, Intervention of Palmer & Co., supra, is that in this case the bank was the paying agent of the items deposited with it. This we believe to be a distinction without a difference, and are of the opinion that this case, like the Palmer Case, is controlled by the authority of S. E. Hall, Inc., v. Farmers’ Trust & Savings Bank, 177 La. 659, 148 So. 909.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 266, 1934 La. App. LEXIS 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-canal-bank-trust-company-lactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack