, , ,,
or; . I
.!;,' . '
., ,"1 ;
.J , . ;:
tCCrduli' oburl. 'D;
OJ" , ,i I .. , PlamiUl' and defendil!itbanks for several years had acted In., th.e.. o.olle,ction.Of .ohecks, no.tes, and d. .r a.f.t.s, the practice' betng'f. Ot". 'each to credit . . . .. tho f.O.r . c.4s Whe.n . ..f.. ordrafts lin.d..lJ.OtE1J! .. n villed f t.he.ir .. " pa;ttleilt;'· WMn a oheQk was returned. unpaid after bEiuig credited, t\Ie \\ttlount agmn.The ainburtt.s thus 1l01leof.cl1!were Intngled with , thereof oithe.ballk. PlainUft'sent defendant a note for "cOllection and ,oredit," wWoQ,. on maturity, was paid by a oredit was.immediat81y given on'tlie booftlt'.' But defehdantfailed, .andtlle oheok passed in,tp the hands of the re, oaiver; HeU!-1lnat, in View of the course of dealhig. the twpbanks stood in the relation of debtor and oNlditor with respect to theamoutit of the oheck,alld it be· came a part of the of the bank. '
In Equity. i:SUif by the Franl'lin iCounty National 'B,ank against recei\ter of the National Bank; to'recover pas. Thomas P. 'session o(a' certain check or its proceeds. Heard on .demurrer to the 'bill. Sustained: ' ." . ' G'amten BrfYll1fie, for H.utchins & Wheeler and Frank D. A¥en,U;S. Atty., for defendant.
; :J' . , ;;
Covr,Circpit JudgE(' .'l'his upon de.murrerto the bill The?efe1)dant is ofthe Maverick National 'Bank, Wh1ch,closed doors for bUSIness, October 31, 1891.. For eral years' p'ri9r. to' th1sdate the Maverick Bank had been the agent of to collect checks. on,. other banks, and drafts and the vidu'al riotes,ofother wrttes. of dealing, the Maverick Bank received such checks, dralts. and' notes, crediting the checks to the complainant when received, and crediting the drafts and note!:! when it was advised of their payment; and UpOI1 such credits it allowed the plainant a certain rate of interest, but whenever a check received by the Maverick Bank, and credited to the complainant, was returned unpaid, the amount so credited was charged back to the complainant. The plainant was also agent of the Maverick Bank to collect checks, drafts, . and notes payable in Greenfield, Mass., where the complainant was 10,and the amounts of. such che,cks w,ere credited ,..to the Maverick Bank on and the amounts of such ,'drafts.and notes upon the advice of payment. The amounts collected were not kept separate by either bank, but the money was mingled with the general funds. On the 28th of September, 1891, the com plainant mailed to the Maverick Bank a letter inclosing various checks and notes... The letter stated that they were inclosed for "colleetion and credit." . Arnong was a note for $10,000,dra:wn by Brown,DurreU & Co., of B!>st0n, payable to their oWn by toemand also by J. A.Brown. The note fell due October3t,1891, .and Browo, purreU & Co. delivered to the said )j;averick· Bank,' before it suspended, their check, drawn on the -North NationaL Bank,for $10,000, in payme1)t of the note. This check was also indorsed by Brown, Durrell & Co. and J. A. Brown. Upon the re-
Bank entered. the arnountQi Sf!.\G1 check the c()mplainaqt. The ,pa,sse.lit into the P}lRd$ of ,the failure!of the baqk"and.itsproceeds,$l,re PO\\T in the ha:u.di! ,. .' , ",,' , , Upon, this Eltate of fa,eta the, .complaillant, cgntendsthatthe ;a"'Ilk held this itsl,agent ,at Jailure, ,am} that it is entitled to the same, or the proceeds thereof. The defendant, ,on tpe other hand, holds that. the Maverick Bank having given the complainant credit for the note as paid, therelatwnship between the two became that of simple debtor and creditor, the title to the check which was rein n?tEl ven the compla1Oant.The hote 10 questloltwas rece1ved by the for "qollection and credit. II According to the tbe' parties, credit was not to' be given by the course of the ,note was paid.. But it the note. Maverick Wits'paid of October, andcredit (or'thearnount given to the Mavericli ,Bank;": Whlln j)ayme'rit was credi$giveni'Itiseemsto me the Maverick Bank ceased to be agent of the betweenthe twO'becametbat of complainant, and the And creditor. " This proposition is based upon the general course anditmight not be applica,bletotqe case, of a. single' note sent bY:, one bank to, another for collection and remittance. '.l'he real ,on ,the part of the, (l()rpplainant relates to the,'form I)fpayinel1t. It, is'fiot seriously · .if b'arik had received in money which had bElen mmgled with the general complainant could, pot follow the :specific blit,could only come in as a creditor. I.donot think any ,sound reasonhRs been"advanbed"for drawing a distinction between .a, paYment by check under the facts preseqted in this case. When the Maverick Bank received payment of th,e note, and credited the complainabtwith the atnQUnt in if$ general account with the comwith respect to the payment of the plainant, it assumed all note. Ifthe cbeckreceived;'inpayment.proved tobebad, it relieve the Maveriok Bank" It might have received payment cash, or by check or draft, or even by the substitution of a..new riote, but with this the complail1lUlt had no concern. Looking at the general nature or the transsctions between these ., parties, it seet1ls'to me that, when the note was paid and credit given to the complainant, the agency of. thl'l Maverick Bank 'to collect and credit this ,nota ceased, because, as between ffie'complainaiitand the bank, the batlk had done t,hat which it was required to do, and therefore the relation of the parties from that time be held,tp 9,ei that of debtor and' ered;itor; The because it could ,not affect the claim of the complainant su9h payment being at the risk of the bank. F'ulfmt jJank, 2 Wall. 252, 2<56. III the case;of ManufactuT81'$' .j)ank ,.Y. ,,(knM;nental Maf'!8.555, 20 N. E. Rep. 193, the draft had at the tilJleof the inlIDlvency .of the baqk, and the court that the agency to. qollect. was terminat!:ld by such'in-
qn, Hs books
solvency. In· tJl'e' rpteseht case, so far lis the complainant'and' tile erick Bank are&ncel1led) the note had been collected and credit given. The reasoningdf the court in the last above cited case would seem to support the contention of the defendant ill this case. So far as the conclusions reached" 'by the court iD;Levi v. Bank, 5 Dill. 104, are inconsistentwith this opinion,' I do nof'agree with them. Demurrer sustailled.
V. & G. R. Co. et ale
(OirQ'Uit Court, B. D.
ATLANTA & F. R. Co.
Georata. W. D.
RBOmvERS-J'UJUSDIOTION Oil' STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS-COMITY·
. .'C(lmity does not require that a federal court shall refuslitoappoint a reCeiver fer anUroad bellause of the pendenoy ofa prior foreclbsure suit in the state CO,I1"w!ten'such 5uit is adJIiittedly an amicable proceeding. intended as a means of nnl'&the property into success, and it appears that there is no immediate pnrpose of procuring t\:!.e appointment of a receiver therein.
SAil:E-PmOlUTY Oil' SUIT AND Oil' POSSES$ION.
'Where a receiver appointed by a federal court actnall)' takes possession of the property, the jurisdiction of that court is, complete, and possession wlll not be , yielded to a receiver subsequently appointed by a state'conrt, although the suit in the atate court was commenced before that in the federal court. . the state court, prior to the of the federal receiver, had granted an order restraining the officers of the company from using its funds fol' than oorpoIi'ate pUl!'Poses, does not show prior possession by it. . Under thelaws of Georgia, (Code, § 8406,> a railroad ool!'Poration is a residel},tof the entire'state, and aD-mhabitant of all the counties :through which the roadrill18, IWdmay, be sued in any of them. Dam v. Bankl.ng Qo., 17 Ga. 326, followed,
,Oil' :ij.AILROJ,D ,CORPORATION..
T4e '. fact
Ubder Rev. St. U.S. 5 789, declaring that civil suits shall .only be broughtln the distri,cti,of which 4efeqdant is an in1:labitant, etc' l a railroad company i8.an inhabita,Iit of any distriot iu which it operates its roaa through .authorized agents. U.'B; v. Ra'llroatlOo.,49 Fed. Rep. 297. followed. . ,WP.ell a federal court has general jurisdiction of .the controversy. and the federal stlilm'tes give the plaintitr a ohoice as to the district in he will sue, , dict,iPn thus obtained C&lInot be. restricted by the laws of the state respecting the
C81,188S. SAME":"RxPEAl.'OIl' STATtr'l'B-SPITS 011' "LOOAL NATURE." SUT. LAWS. .'
Rev. 'St. U. S. §§ 740.742.,relatin!!' to the districts in which suits of a "local 'bat,.. ure",maY"be'brought, ',were not repealed by the juri8dictional acts of 11'11,1887, q:r 18SS: ., . . . A suit by oreditors for 1;11e appointment of a receiver for a railroad Is 8 snit of a "local nature," within the meaning of Rev. St. U. S. SS 740-742, relating to the diatricts in which Buits'mey be brougat.
In Equity.' . Bill by the East Tennessee) Virgihia & Georgia Railroad Company and the Westetn Railroad Company of Alabama against the Atlanta & Florida Railroad Company for injunction and the appointment ofa receiver. Plaintiffs move for an attachment against T. W. Garrett for resisting the decree of the court and interfering with the pOlo session of R. H. Plant, as receiver. Motion granted. Calhoun, King &; Spalding, for plaintiffs.