Winters Government Securities Corp. v. First National Bank

Eighth Circuit

Winters Government Securities Corp. v. First National Bank

636 F.2d 230

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 1980

DocketNo. 80-1309

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 636 F.2d 230 (Winters Government Securities Corp. v. First National Bank) 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

Winters Government Securities Corp. v. First National Bank, 636 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Winters Government Securities Corporation, plaintiff, alleged in its complaint that defendant First National Bank of Breckenridge contracted to purchase four Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) futures from plaintiff and then refused to accept delivery of them. First National answered that a salesman employed by the plaintiff had traded on the bank’s account without its authorization and contrary to its specific instructions to the salesman. Therefore, according to the bank, its refusal to accept delivery was justified.

Following a trial to the court, Chief Judge Edward J. Devitt held that the plaintiff had “not proved its claims by the preponderance of the evidence,” and that he “view[ed] defendant’s version of the facts to be more plausible.” Judgment was thus entered for First National.

We have carefully considered the arguments of the parties on appeal and have studied the record before us. We agree with Judge Devitt’s decision in this case and, accordingly, we affirm on the basis of his well reasoned opinion pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court.

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

PER CURIAM.

Winters Government Securities Corporation, plaintiff, alleged in its complaint that defendant First National Bank of Breckenridge contracted to purchase four Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) futures from plaintiff and then refused to accept delivery of them. First National answered that a salesman employed by the plaintiff had traded on the bank’s account without its authorization and contrary to its specific instructions to the salesman. Therefore, according to the bank, its refusal to accept delivery was justified.

Following a trial to the court, Chief Judge Edward J. Devitt held that the plaintiff had “not proved its claims by the preponderance of the evidence,” and that he “view[ed] defendant’s version of the facts to be more plausible.” Judgment was thus entered for First National.

We have carefully considered the arguments of the parties on appeal and have studied the record before us. We agree with Judge Devitt’s decision in this case and, accordingly, we affirm on the basis of his well reasoned opinion pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 F.2d 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winters-government-securities-corp-v-first-national-bank-ca8-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack