Mainliner Motor Express, Inc. v. Winn State Bank & Trust Co.

390 So. 2d 932, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4636
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 28, 1980
DocketNo. 14293
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 390 So. 2d 932 (Mainliner Motor Express, Inc. v. Winn State Bank & Trust Co.) 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
Mainliner Motor Express, Inc. v. Winn State Bank & Trust Co., 390 So. 2d 932, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4636 (La. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

MARVIN, Judge.

The drawee bank appeals a summary judgment rendered in 1980 in this suit on a check written in 1973. We affirm the trial court’s determination that there was no genuine issue of the material fact that the bank, as drawee and contrary to LRS 7:136, 137, failed to return the dishonored check in 24 hours.1

Evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment establishes that the check was deposited in plaintiff’s bank in Omaha, Nebraska, on February 2, 1973, and, in the course of routine bank clearing procedures, was forwarded to the defendant drawee bank on February 8, 1973, as a regular “cash” item. The check was eventually returned unpaid by the defendant bank to the forwarding bank on March 6, 1973. This suit was filed eight months later.

[933]*933The bank contends that there is a genuine issue of the material fact when the defendant bank actually received and returned the check. The bank further contends that the trial court erred in disregarding the affidavit of its president which was filed the day of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The affidavit was not timely filed and need not have been considered. C.C.P. 966. Bonnette v. Century Ready-Mix Corp., 369 So.2d 1201 (La.App.2d Cir. 1979). The earlier deposition of the bank president denies any specific knowledge about this particular check and there is no evidence to controvert the fact that the check was forwarded as a “cash” item.

The evidence of the exact date and time that the bank actually received and returned the check rests with the defendant bank. Plaintiff established when the check was forwarded and when it was returned, February 8-March 6, 1973. Defendant bank asserts that it has no records from which the time involved and the nature of the item, cash or collection, can be determined.

If evidence exists to controvert plaintiff’s evidence, that evidence is in the hands of the defendant bank. The evidence supports the conclusion that there is no genuine issue of the material fact that the defendant bank held the check for more than 24 hours. For reasons assigned below and summarized here, and at appellant’s cost, judgment is

AFFIRMED.

HALL, J., dissents without assigning written reasons.

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

Related

West Cash & Carry Building Materials of New Orleans, Inc. v. Bohrer
409 So. 2d 386 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)
Mainliner Motor Express, Inc. v. Winn State Bank & Trust Co.
395 So. 2d 340 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 So. 2d 932, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mainliner-motor-express-inc-v-winn-state-bank-trust-co-lactapp-1980.