Southeastern Financial Corporation v. John Smith

Fifth Circuit

Southeastern Financial Corporation v. John Smith

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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 1976

Docket75-3203

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 542 F.2d 278 (Southeastern Financial Corporation v. John Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 F.2d 278, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southeastern-financial-corporation-v-john-smith-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack