Thompson v. Commercial & Savings Bank

208 N.W. 780, 50 S.D. 154, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 320
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedMay 5, 1926
DocketFile No. 5960
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 N.W. 780 (Thompson v. Commercial & Savings Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thompson v. Commercial & Savings Bank, 208 N.W. 780, 50 S.D. 154, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 320 (S.D. 1926).

Opinion

GATES, P. J.

In this case judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of $1,177.59 under similar circumstances and for the same reasons as. the judgment entered in Gibbs v. Commercial & Savings Bank of Sioux Falls, 50 S. D. —, 208 N. W. 779, in which the opinion of this court is handed down herewith. The said sum was a part of the trust sum of $21,417.61 deposited in said bank on February 23, 1923, by the Tri-State Farmers’ Commission Company referred to in the Gibbs case, and which deposit was wiped out by the attempted charging off of indebtedness due the bank from the commission company.

The only distinction sought to be'made -between this and the Gibbs case is that here 16 head of the 73 hogs shipped by plaintiff to the commission company were sold on commission, while the remaining 57 hogs were fraudulently sold by the commission company to itself in the name -of a dummy purchaser. The check sent to plaintiff was for the aggregate of those sales, and that is the check which is the basis of the recovery in this case. The' fact that the sale of part of the hogs was fictitious is immaterial in this action. Nor is it material that the commission company later sold the 57 hogs for a greater sum. The check received by plaintiff stands in the sarnie ^relation- to the bank as though lb represented- the actual sale of the hogs on commission.

Whether respondent was entited to the full sum allowed or only to his proportion upon the basis of what remained after first applying the -charge-off to the moneys that actually belonged to the Tri-'State is not raised upon this appeal, and is therefore not hereby determined.

For the reasons stated in the Gibbs case, the judgment is affirmed.

MISER, Circuit Judge, sitting in lieu of SHERWOOD, J.

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

Related

Berg v. Union State Bank
229 N.W. 102 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 N.W. 780, 50 S.D. 154, 1926 S.D. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-commercial-savings-bank-sd-1926.