Southeastern Financial Corporation v. John Smith

Fifth Circuit

Southeastern Financial Corporation v. John Smith

542 F.2d 278, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6250

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 12, 1976·No. 75-3203·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to the enlightened and invaluable provisions of Ala. Const, art. 5, § 140(b)(3) (1901, Amended 1973), we certified three controlling questions of undetermined Alabama law to the Supreme Court of that state. Southeastern Financial Corp. v. Smith, 526 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1976). That Court’s answers to our questions in Smith v. Southeastern Financial Corp., Ala., 337 So.2d 330 (1976) have made the discharge of our Erie responsibility clear and easy. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). We hold that the defendant, John Smith, is not liable in damages to the plaintiff, Southeastern Financial Corporation, under the Alabama Civil Worthless Check Act, Ala. Code of 1940, tit. 7, § 131(1) (Cum. Supp. 1973), as Smith did not possess the essential element of intent to defraud. Accordingly, the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to the enlightened and invaluable provisions of Ala. Const, art. 5, § 140(b)(3) (1901, Amended 1973), we certified three controlling questions of undetermined Alabama law to the Supreme Court of that state. Southeastern Financial Corp. v. Smith, 526 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1976). That Court’s answers to our questions in Smith v. Southeastern Financial Corp., Ala., 337 So.2d 330 (1976) have made the discharge of our Erie responsibility clear and easy. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). We hold that the defendant, John Smith, is not liable in damages to the plaintiff, Southeastern Financial Corporation, under the Alabama Civil Worthless Check Act, Ala. Code of 1940, tit. 7, § 131(1) (Cum. Supp. 1973), as Smith did not possess the essential element of intent to defraud. Accordingly, the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Southeastern Financial Corporation v. John Smith, 542 F.2d 278, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6250 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

542 F.2d 278 (Southeastern Financial Corporation v. John Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related