Wood v. Citizens Bank

154 S.E. 623, 199 N.C. 371, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 120
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 10, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 154 S.E. 623 (Wood v. Citizens Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wood v. Citizens Bank, 154 S.E. 623, 199 N.C. 371, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 120 (N.C. 1930).

Opinion

*373 Stacy, C. J.

On tbe findings of tbe referee, approved by tbe trial court, wbi'cb are conclusive as tbey are not challenged for want of evidence to support them, we have discovered no exceptive assignment of error of sufficient merit to work a reversal of tbe judgment.

Tbe two circumstances which differentiate this ease from those cited and relied upon by appellant are, first, the fact that tbe $10,265.00 in question was embezzled from tbe bank by tbe deceased treasurer, and, second, tbe finding that said funds were used by tbe treasurer in bis capacity as such to discharge county obligations.

It is well settled that where one’s property has been purloined by actionable fraud or covin, tbe law permits him to follow it and to recover it from tbe wrongdoer, or from any one to whom it has been transferred otherwise than in good faith and for a valuable consideration, so long as it can be identified or traced; and tbe principle applies to money and cboses in action as well as to specific property. Proctor v. Fertilizer Co., 189 N. C., 243, 126 S. E., 608; Mfg. Co. v. Summers, 143 N. C., 102, 55 S. E., 522; Edwards v. Culberson, 111 N. C., 342, 16 S. E., 233. Tbe pursuit of equity in this respect is stopped only when tbe means of ascertainment fail, or tbe rights of bona fide purchasers for value, without notice, intervene. McNinch v. Trust Co., 183 N. C., 33, 110 S. E., 663.

Had tbe referee found that what "Ward did with respect to tbe bank’s funds amounted to a loan, a different question would have been presented. Liles v. Rogers, 113 N. C., 197, 18 S. E., 104; Bank v. South Hadley, 128 Mass., 503; Bank v. New Castle, 224 Pa., 285; Pittsburgh v. Bank, 79 Atl. (Pa.), 406.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co.
82 S.E.2d 113 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Wyatt v. Sharp
80 S.E.2d 762 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Wilson v. . Robinson
32 S.E.2d 601 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
State Ex Rel. Underwood v. Watson
27 S.E.2d 144 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
King v. Richardson
136 F.2d 849 (Fourth Circuit, 1943)
Bright v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks
199 S.E. 630 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Bright v. Hood
214 N.C. 410 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Bank of Beaufort v. Commercial National Bank of Raleigh
176 S.E. 734 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Ex Parte Michie
165 S.E. 359 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1932)
Nettles v. People's Bank
165 S.E. 359 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1932)
State Ex Rel. Roebuck v. National Surety Co.
156 S.E. 531 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 S.E. 623, 199 N.C. 371, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-citizens-bank-nc-1930.