Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Deposit Guaranty Bank

133 So. 660, 160 Miss. 815, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 166
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 20, 1931
DocketNo. 29384.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 So. 660 (Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Deposit Guaranty Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Deposit Guaranty Bank, 133 So. 660, 160 Miss. 815, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 166 (Mich. 1931).

Opinion

*817 Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the- court.

Appellant sent its cheek for seventy-five dollars to its employee, one Pirtle. The latter lost the check in a poker game, and thereupon indorsed and delivered it to the supposed winner, one Smith. The latter owed a Mrs. Fair-child for borrowed money, and delivered the check to her in part payment thereof, and Mrs. Fairchild upon her indorsement cashed the check in appellee bank, the bank knowing nothing of the facts above stated. Having ascertained, as he asserts, that the poker game was what is commonly called, in the vernacular, crooked, Pirtle wired appellant to stop payment, which was accordingly done,- and appellee bank sued the said maker to recover the amount paid out by appellee in cashing the check, and secured a decree for the amount.

Under section 1824, Code 1930', and under the rules of interpretation thereof, as required by section 972, being the leading sections on gambling transactions, the transfer of the check by Pirtle to Smith was utterly void, and was no more effective to pass title than if the check had been stolen. Therefore no title passed to Mrs. Fair-child, nor through her to the bank. Consequently, the latter must look to Mrs. Fairchild for its money. 3 R. C. L., p. 1020.

This question has been settled by the opinion in Elkin Henson Grain Co. v. White, 134 Miss. 203, 98 So. 531. Evidently this decision was not called to the attention of the learned chancellor, since it was not cited in the briefs here.

Reversed, and bill dismissed.

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

Related

Weinstein v. Sea View, Inc.
188 F.2d 116 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)
Crosby v. Farose Trading Corp.
27 So. 2d 367 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 So. 660, 160 Miss. 815, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-mfg-co-v-deposit-guaranty-bank-miss-1931.