{
  "id": 8652995,
  "name": "C. DOWD, Receiver, v. L. D. STEPHENSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dowd v. Stephenson",
  "decision_date": "1890-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "467",
  "last_page": "471",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "105 N.C. 467"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "39 Me., 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Me.",
      "case_ids": [
        8847263
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/me/39/0489-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 452,
    "char_count": 8996,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.437445429607303e-07,
      "percentile": 0.652487075501313
    },
    "sha256": "0c28222d5ff6feb400f9de0fc67784094df24bc2f0f4bce94b27ef911baf0a18",
    "simhash": "1:b803dc6b489ad778",
    "word_count": 1631
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:46.302543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. DOWD, Receiver, v. L. D. STEPHENSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MerrimoN, C. J.\nafter stating the case: The issue tendered by the defendant did not embrace the whole matter of fact at issue \u2014 that submitted by the Court did, and was sufficient.\nIn the absence of special authority for such purpose, neither its president nor its cashier, nor these officers acting conjointly, had authority or right to appropriate and devote any part of the funds of the bank of which the plaintiff is receiver, to the payment of such president\u2019s personal debt due to the defendant. Such authority, ordinarily, was beyond the scope of the purpose and duties of such officers. No doubt the directors \u2014 the governing authority of the bank \u2014 might allow them to exercise such power, or they might ratify such transaction, but it must in some way sufficiently appear that they did. Gt. on Bk., \u00a7143, et seq.; id., \u00a7 171, et seq.\nThe defendant had no deposit in the bank, nor did it owe him anything, nor was it in any way bound to recognize and pay his checks or orders on it for money. It did, however, pay them, to his use and benefit. He thus obtained money from it by the unauthorized and fraudulent acts of its officers. Cross had no right or authority to tell the defendant that the bank would pay his checks. This the defendant ought, to have known. It was his duty to himself and to the bank to see that such permission to draw upon it was authorized.\nIt was his misfortune that he dealt with and confided in its faithless officer, and not with and in it. The mere fact that he had drawn checks that had been paid before, under like circumstances, was no excuse or justification for drawing those in question, certainly in the absence of knowledge of such transactions on the part of the directors of the bank. If the latter connived at, or, by implication, or otherwise, sanctioned such payment of the checks of the defendant, he should have proven the fact.\nThe checks were not properly \u201coverdrafts\u201d \u2014 the defendant did not have any deposit or credit upon which to overdraw. He got and had benefit of the bank\u2019s money in a way not authorized or intended by it, and very certainly it can recover that money, by proper action, as the present one is. Morse on Banking, \u00a7360; Bolles on Bk. and Dep., 358; Franklin Bank v. Byram, 39 Me., 489.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MerrimoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. G. M. Busbee, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. W. H. Pace and J. N. Holding, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. DOWD, Receiver, v. L. D. STEPHENSON.\nBank \u2014 President\u2014Directors\u2014 G hecks\u2014 Overdrafts \u2014 Private Debts of its Officers.\n1. In an action by a receiver of a National bank to recover the amount of certain drafts and checks drawn by one S. on the bank, and paid by it during its existence: Held, that the then president\u2019s authorizing such transactions to pay debts due by himself, though with the knowledge of the cashier of the bank, is no sufficient defence.\n2. The president and officers of the bank, other than the directors, have no authority to appropriate its moneys for the payment of private debts.\n3. The defendant cannot be in the place of one who had made \u201c overdrafts,\u201d for he had no deposit in the bank.\nThis was a civil action, tried at the Fall Term, 1889, of Wake Superior Court, by Arm field, J.\nThe following is a copy of the material parts of the case settled on appeal:\nThe plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of $273.42 and interest, claimed to be due for money paid out on defendant\u2019s written requests, or checks, by the State National Bank\u2014 in other words, an overdraft for that amount.\nThe plaintiff was the receiver of the bank.\nThe defendant admitted drawing the checks and the payment of the money by the bank to the amount of the draft, but denied any indebtedness to the bank, or to the receiver, upon the ground stated in the answer.\nIt was in evidence, without contradiction, and admitted by both parties, that C. E. Cross was president and S. C. White was cashier of the State National Bank in 1887, and up to March 26th, 1888.\nThe defendant tendered an issue:\n\u201cTo whom was credit given by the bank in the payment of the checks for the alleged overdraft?\u201d\nHis Honor stated that the issue in this form involved an inference of law, and that the Court would decline to submit it. That the issue would be: \u201c Is the defendant indebted to C. Dowd, receiver, and if so, in what amount?\u201d and upon that issue the Court would charge upon the matters involved. Defendant excepted.\nThe defendant introduced the following testimony:\nCharles E. Cross: \u201c In 1887 and 1888, up to March 26, I was president of the State National Bank; S. C. White was cashier. I instructc-d White, the cashier, to pay the che ks of defendant. I was indebted to defendant personally in a considerable amount for \u2018 logging,\u2019 or supplying logs to my saw'-mill. It had been my habit in settling with defendant to tell him to draw checks on the State Bank, and I would have them paid. I did this for my convenience. Defendant did so, and drew the checks constituting the ovt rdraft claimed by plaintiff to be due. The checks wTere paid. Defendant\u2019s account had been overdrawn before, though he did not know it, and I had made it good. I told the cashier to look to me for the payment of these checks, and I also told Stephenson I would pay them. I wras indebted at that time to the defendant more than the amount of the overdraft.\u201d\nCross-examined. \u2014 \u201cMy account was largely overdrawn at the time the checks were paid. I expected to receive some money, and to make a deposit to meet these checks. The directors w'ere not consulted about this matter. They were not consulted usuallj' in small loans, nor in ordinary cases about the payment of checks I did not wish to increase my own overdraft. I did not make a deposit to Stephenson\u2019s credit. It was my habit to make the deposits to his credit at the end of each month.\u201d\nS. C. White, witness for defendant: \u201cI was cashier for years prior to and in 1888. I controlled the cashing of checks. Defendant was in the habit of drawdng checks on the bank. Cross, the president, told me to pay all of defendant\u2019s checks; that he was responsible for them and would pay them. I honored these checks on Cross\u2019 credit, and looked to him to pay them. Cross had paid former drafts. Mr. Womble, the book-keeper, knew of these transactions. No notice was sent to the defendant of his overdrafts. It was usual to send notices The checks were charged on the books of the bank to-the defendant. No deposit was ever actually made by Cross to meet them.\u201d\nL. D. Stephenson, the defendant: \u201cI received no notice of any overdraft. Mr. Cross emploj\u2019ed me to get logs for his mill, and I had instructed him to place what he owed me to my credit in the bank, and also $700 for land, and $1,000 for another tract of land, and I thought when I drew those drafts that he (Cross) had placed money to my credit. \u25a0 I was never notified of an overdraft. Bank was closed Saturday, March 26, 1888. The book-keeper was instructed to notify all persons who had overdrawn. \u00cd had dealt in same way with Mr. Cross to the amount of $5,000. I did not know of the insolvency of the bank, or Cross, or of Cross\u2019 indebtedness to the bank.\u201d\nUpon the evidence of the defendant, his Honor instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Verdict and judgment as set forth in the record. The defendant excepted to the charge. From the judgment the defendant appealed.\nThe material part of the defendant\u2019s answer is as follows:\nDefence set forth in answer\u2014\n2. He admits giving checks on said bank for the amounts set out in the complaint, but denies that he owes anything on that account, and avers the facts connected therewith to be as follows: C. E. Cross, president of said bank, being indebted to this defendant, requested him to give checks on said bank to the amount of his claim, and that the bank would pay the same. This defendant had, prior to this, dealt in a similar way wdth C. E. Cross, president of said bank, to the amount of many hundred dollars, and the bank paid the checks of this defendant without his putting any money to his credit.\n3. Not only the president, but the other officers of said bank, knew, when they paid the checks set out in the complaint, that the money was paid on account of the indebtedness of C. E. Cross, president of said bank, to this defendant, and was not intended to be charged to this defendant, the same being paid by said bank on the account of C. E. Cross, president of said bank, and intended to be a charge against him only.\n4. The president of said bank was, at the time said checks were drawn and paid, indebted to this defendant to an amount much in excess of the checks drawn as above, which said bank agreed io pay, and is claimed as an offset to plaintiff\u2019s demand.\nThe Court gave judgment as follows:\n\u201cHereupon it is adjudged that the plaintiff recover against the defendant the sum of two hundred and seventy-three dollars and forty-two cents, with interest on $273.42 thereof from the 13th day of March, .1888, until paid, together with costs and disbursements.\u201d\nMr. G. M. Busbee, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. W. H. Pace and J. N. Holding, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0467-01",
  "first_page_order": 493,
  "last_page_order": 497
}