In re the Liquidation of the Bank of Pender
This text of 204 N.C. 143 (In re the Liquidation of the Bank of Pender) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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]*145action 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
204 N.C. 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-liquidation-of-the-bank-of-pender-nc-1933.