Williams v. Hood

204 N.C. 140
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 8, 1933·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

CONNOR, J.

The relationship between the plaintiff and the Bank of Pee Dee, with respect to the funds deposited by the plaintiff with said bank, prior to 1 January, 1930, was that of creditor and debtor. These funds were not trust funds at the dates they were deposited with the bank by the plaintiff. No facts are alleged in the complaint which show or from which it can be reasonably inferred that said funds constituted a special deposit for a special purpose. Parker v. Trust Co., 202 N. C., 230, 162 S. E., 564. Nor are any facts alleged in the complaint which show or from which it can reasonably be inferred that said funds after they were deposited became trust funds. The relationship between the plaintiff and the bank, as creditor and debtor, with respect to said funds, was not changed or altered by the agreement of the bank to purchase bonds for the plaintiff, and to pay for said bonds out of said funds. Blakey v. Brinson, 286 U. S., 254, 76 L. Ed., 1089.

There was error in the judgment overruling the demurrer. The demurrer should have been sustained. The judgment is

Beversed.

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

Williams v. Hood, 204 N.C. 140 (N.C. 1933).

204 N.C. 140 (Williams v. Hood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sides v. Citizens National Bank
100 S.E.2d 67 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Lipe v. Guilford National Bank
72 S.E.2d 759 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Slater v. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co.
172 S.E. 355 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Dupree v. . Harrell
172 S.E. 214 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Hood
171 S.E. 344 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)