Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Moore

79 F. 705, 25 C.C.A. 150, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2348
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 1, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 79 F. 705 (Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Moore, 79 F. 705, 25 C.C.A. 150, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2348 (8th Cir. 1897).

Opinion

LOCHREN, District Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion, of the court.

1. Although the Waggoner-Birney Company, from its connection with, and possibility of interest in, the subject of the litigation, was a [706]*706proper, and even necessary, party defendant, yet on the rendition of the decree, as it appeared entitled to no riglits or relief, and was not subjected to any liability in tbe action, tbe dismissal, as to that company, was proper. If tbe appellant deemed that said company should be retained longer as a party, it should have brought that party here on this appeal, but its rights and interests in tbe subject-matter are fully determined by the decree to which it was a party.

2. Tbe right of tbe appellees to recover of tbe appellant tbe moneys claimed by tbe appellees in this suit depended upon tbe litigated questions of fact, whether tbe appellees were in equity tbe owners of tbe money claimed by them at tbe time tbe same was deposited by said company in said bank, and whether tbe officers of said bank, when it received such deposit, knew, or bad reason to believe, that tbe deposit consisted of or contained moneys not belonging to said, company, but to the appellees, or to others for whom tbe company was but tbe agent or factor. Clemmer v. Bank (Ill. Sup.) 41 N. E. 728; Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U. S. 411, 11 Sup. Ct. 118. Tbe court found these facts in favor of tbe appellees, and, from a careful consideration of tbe evidence, we are satisfied with the correctness of such finding. Tbe decree appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

National Indemnity Co. v. American Nat. Bank
120 F. Supp. 713 (D. Minnesota, 1954)
Wichita Royalty Co. v. City Nat. Bank of Wichita Falls
74 S.W.2d 661 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Berg v. Union State Bank
229 N.W. 102 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1930)
Demas v. First Nat. Bank of Baker City
251 P. 62 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Mumford v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
228 P. 206 (Utah Supreme Court, 1924)
Steere v. Stockyards National Bank
256 S.W. 586 (Texas Supreme Court, 1923)
Drovers National Bank v. Denver Live Stock Exchange
74 Colo. 212 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1923)
Steere v. Stockyards Nat. Bank
266 S.W. 531 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Walters Nat. Bank v. Bantock
1913 OK 737 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Sutliff v. National City Bank
6 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 177 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 F. 705, 25 C.C.A. 150, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-stock-yards-nat-bank-v-moore-ca8-1897.