{
  "id": 11269011,
  "name": "SHIELDS v. BANK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shields v. Bank",
  "decision_date": "1905-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "189",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "138 N.C. 185"
    }
  ],
  "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": "31 N. C., 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N. C., 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684607
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/26/0061-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 7741,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140457609690758
    },
    "sha256": "5d274eb2f4fa9e85b11cc07c9ee3d4034d5184f69b35a4dae8a6c53968ac4888",
    "simhash": "1:5ca36678b3f69e97",
    "word_count": 1344
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:59:46.048294+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SHIELDS v. BANK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nIn this action the plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of ten shares of stock in the defendant bank, standing on its books in the name of M. L. Shields. Said stock is worth $110 per share, and all dividends declared thereon unpaid, and demands judgment that the stock be transferred to his own name, for all dividends declared, for damages and other relief.\nThe defendant bank admits these facts in its answer except as to the number of dividends declared, and proceeds to set up a counterclaim to the effect that plaintiff, W. S. Shields, and one M. L. Shields, his brother, combined and conspired together to enable M. L. Shields to commit a fraud on defendant bank to its damage several thousand dollars. The scheme alleged between the said plaintiff and M. L. Shields, is set out in sections 1 and 2 of defendant\u2019s further defense as follows \u201cThat during the year 1891, Milton L. Shields, who was a brother of the plaintiff, moved to the city of Greensboro, N. C., from Knoxville, Tenn., which latter place is still the home of the plaintiff. That the said Milton L. Shields was an extravagant and unsafe business man, had recently failed in business in Tennessee, and at the time of his removing to Greensboro was totally insolvent and without credit and standing as a business man among those who knew him; all of which said facts were well known to his brother Vm. S. Shields, the'plaintiff in this action. 2. That the plaintiff well knowing Milton L. Shields\u2019 financial condition and untrustworthiness as a business man and desiring to establish him in business in Greensboro and give him financial standing and credit with the defendant bank and others, to which he well knew his said brother was not entitled and ought not to have as defendant is advised and believes, agreed and conspired with the said Milton L. Shields to have him purchase a large block of stock in the Simpson-Shields Shoe Co. of Greensboro with plaintiff\u2019s money, and thereby become an officer and director of said concern, and also to purchase ten shares of the defendant\u2019s stock and thereby become a director in the defendant bank, so as to obtain a large and undeserved line of credit from the same, and that he (the plaintiff) would furnish all the money necessary to carry out this scheme of fraud and deception, and that all of this stock should be made out and issued in the name of Milton L. Shields and so remain upon the books of the concern issuing the same, but should at once be assigned to their real owner (the plaintiff) and sent out of the State, so that the same could not be held liable for any of the debts contracted by his brother, and that this scheme should be kept a secret from the defendant bank and all others dealing'with his brother.\u201d\nThe answer then goes at great length into different business transactions in which the bank extended to Milton L. Shields credit to a large amount, which he failed to pay, and demands judgment against W. S. Shields, the plaintiff, as an individual, for the amount M. L. Shelds owed the bank, nearly $8,000; and also that the plaintiff surrender for cancellation the ten shares of capital stock in defendant\u2019s bank.\nIt will be noted that in the counterclaim the defendant is seeking no relief as creditor of M. E. Shields against the estate of M. L. Shields. The statement is that W. S. Shields, the plaintiff, entered into a conspiracy to cheat and defraud the defendant and makes that a basis of substantive relief demanded against W. S. .Shields as an individual.\nAt the close of the testimony the judge instructed the jury that if they believed the evidence the plaintiff could not recover his demand for the stock or the value thereof. Verdict and judgment were so entered and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nWe have examined the entire evidence in this case and are utterly unable to perceive any testimony which proves or tends to prove that W. S. Shields ever entered into any conspiracy to cheat or defraud the defendant, or which tends'to support any demand against W. S. Shields as an individual. ITis brother, M. L. Shields, had failed as a business man in Tennessee where he formerly lived, and there was evidence to the effect that he had proved himself improvident and incapable. Going to Greensboro, N. 0., the plaintiff, who was his brother, furnished him money to buy an interest in a corporation carrying on a mercantile business,' and also ten shares of stock in the defendant bank, and took a mortgage or assignment of tbe stock in each to secure the advance. There was nothing done by the plaintiff directly to mislead any one. The plaintiff\u2019s deposition taken in the cause was offered by the defendant and appears to be direct, frank and full, and discloses the fact that he advanced his brother mon^y to help start him in business, took an assignment of the stock as security, and was not aware that his brother\u2019s business enterprises were not prospering, until his death disclosed the fact that he was insolvent.\nIt may be that the act of the plaintiff was calculated to give M. L. Shields a business standing in the community to which he was not entitled; but more than this is required to sustain the charges made in this answer. It must be proved as well as alleged that the plaintiff entered into a conspiracy to cheat and was a participant in a fraudulent purpose, either in the scheme or its execution, which worked injury to the defendant as a proximate consequence. Brannock v. Bouldin, 26 N. C., 61; Stafford v. Newsom, 31 N. C., 508.\nAs we have stated, there is nothing in the testimony supporting any such charge, and, on the admissions in the pleadings and proof of dividends due and unpaid, the plaintiff was entitled to the full relief demanded in the complaint, and, on \u00a1ilaintiff\u2019s appeal, there will be a\nNew Trial.\nDEFENDANT'S APPEAL.\nHoke, J.\nThere were two issues in this case, one addressed to the plaintiff\u2019s demand and the other to the defendant\u2019s counterclaim. The judge below, charged the jury that if they believed the evidence, to answer the issue on the defendant\u2019s counterclaim \u201cnothing.\u201d\nAs we have said in the plaintiff\u2019s appeal, there is no evidence which sustains or tends to sustain the counterclaim of the defendant against W. S. Shields as an individual, and as tbe question of the defendant\u2019s rights against M. L. Shields\u2019 interest in the stock is not presented in this case, the verdict and judgment below on the counterclaim are\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J. Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "King & Kimball and Parker & Parker for the plaintiff.",
      "Brooks & Thompson for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHIELDS v. BANK.\n(Filed April 18, 1905.)\nConspiracy to Defraud \u2014 -Sufficiency of Evidence.\n1. Evidence that plaintiff\u2019s brother had failed in business in Tennessee and having moved to this State, plaintiff' advanced him money to buy stock in a mercantile corporation and in the defendant bank and took an assignment of the stock in each to secure the advance but that nothing was done by the plaintiff directly to mislead anyone, and that he was not aware the business of his brother was not prospering until after the latter\u2019s death, held, no proof to support the defendant\u2019s allegation, that plaintiff entered into a conspiracy with his brother to cheat or defraud the defendant.\n2. To sustain a charge of conspiracy, it must be proved that the party charged entered into a conspiracy to cheat and was a participant in a fraudulent purpose, either in the scheme or its execution, which worked injury as a proximate consequence.\nAotioN by Wm. S. Shields against the Oity National Bank of Greensboro, heard by Judge Oliver H. Allen and a jury at the September Term, 1903, of the Superior Court of GuilfoRd County. Erom the judgment rendered both parties appealed.\nPlaiNtiRh/s Appeal.\nKing & Kimball and Parker & Parker for the plaintiff.\nBrooks & Thompson for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 225,
  "last_page_order": 229
}