In re the Liquidation of the Bank of Pender

204 N.C. 143
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 8, 1933·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

BeogdeN, J.

If a depositor in a bank takes a cashier’s check for his deposit, and thereafter surrenders the cashier’s check, purchasing with the proceeds, a draft for the purchase price of Liberty Bonds, and the bank is closed before the draft is paid, does such transaction constitute a preference?

The claimant received Liberty Bonds for the cash which he deposited in the bank. Consequently, the only question to be determined is whether the transaction with the cashier’s check and draft constitutes a preference. The question of law must be answered in the negative. The trans[145] action did not constitute a statutory preference as defined by C. S., 218(c), as construed and interpreted in Morecock v. Hood, 202 N. C., 321, nor did it constitute a preference upon tire trust fund theory declared in Parker v. Trust Co., 202 N. C., 230. The trial judge correctly interpreted the law and the judgment is

Affirmed.

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

In re the Liquidation of the Bank of Pender, 204 N.C. 143 (N.C. 1933).

204 N.C. 143 (In re the Liquidation of the Bank of Pender) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marshall v. Bank of Beaufort
174 S.E. 314 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Fulton, Supt. v. Rundell
190 N.E. 457 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1934)
Royal Mfg. Co. v. Spradlin
6 F. Supp. 98 (M.D. North Carolina, 1934)
Dupree v. . Harrell
172 S.E. 214 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Hood
171 S.E. 344 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)