Preston v. Marquette County Savings Bank

81 N.W. 920, 122 Mich. 696, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 645
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 20, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 N.W. 920 (Preston v. Marquette County Savings Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Preston v. Marquette County Savings Bank, 81 N.W. 920, 122 Mich. 696, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 645 (Mich. 1900).

Opinion

Grant, J.

Action of trover for the conversion of 800 shares of stock of the Santa Fé Copper Company. One Barnes was the cashier of the defendant. In 1892 plaintiff applied to Barnes to purchase the stock. The purchase was made from Stackpole & Ely, of Boston, Mass. The stock was retained by Stackpole & Ely until June 26, 1894, when they sent the same by letter to Mr. Barnes [697]*697stating as the reason for sending it that it was of no value. This letter was addressed to Mr. Barnes individually, and the account kept by Stackpole & Ely was also with him individually. Plaintiff gave his check for the price to Mr. Barnes individually, and not as cashier. The transaction did not appear upon the books of the bank. The bank was not engaged in buying and selling stock for itself or for others. Mr. Barnes testified that, upon receipt of the stock, he kept it in his own private drawer of a desk in the bank, until he sold it, in January, 1899.

Buying and selling stocks is not a part of the legitimate business of a bank. 2 Comp. Laws 189?, § 6093, subd. ?. Under what circumstances a bank would be estopped to deny its authority to engage in such business we need not determine. There is no testimony in this case to show that the bank had been engaged in such business, or knew anything about this transaction, or that it had authorized its cashier, Mr. Barnes, to engage therein. The entire transaction was with Mr. Barnes individually, and not with the bank. For this reason the learned circuit judge' properly directed a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Wells v. United Savings Bank
282 N.W. 844 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Wickstrand v. Nelson
263 N.W. 404 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 N.W. 920, 122 Mich. 696, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preston-v-marquette-county-savings-bank-mich-1900.