FOURTH-STREET NAT. BANK v. YARDLEY. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. l\lay 23, 1893.)
BANKS AND BANKING-DRAFTs-No'r AN EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT.
A draft given on a bank in the or-dinary cour>se of business does not constitute an equitable assignment of the fund; nor is it sufficient to constitute such an a:;si.gnment that the draft is drawn by a bank against its reserve fund in another city, and is given in exchange for clearing-house certificates, upon the president's representation that it owes a heavy debt at the clearing house, wlJi h it is unable to meet, and his statement showing the amount of the reserve fund :lgainst which the drnft i'l dra.wn
In Equity. Suit by the Fourth-Street National Bank of the city of Philadelphia against Robert M. Yardley, receiver of the Keystone National Bank, to charge him as trustee of a fund. Bill dismissed. Richard C. Dale, for complainant. Read & Pettit, for respondent. DALLAS, Circuit Judge. It is authoritatively settled for this court that a check or draft drawn upon a fund in the hands of a banker in the ordinary course of business is not an equitable assignment of such fund, or of any part of it. Bank v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152; Bank v. Schuler, 120 U. S. 511, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644. The learned counsel for the complainant, while frankly admitting this to be the rule, insists that the giving of a check may, "in connection with other circumstances, be evidence of such equitable assignment." Conceding this, the question is as to the sufficiency of the circumstances relied on in this case; and these, according to the statement thereof in the complainant's brief, are as follows: On March 19, 1891, G. W. Marsh, the president of the Keystone National Bank, called at the Fourth-Street National Bank, and stated to the cashier that he had a heavy debt in the clearing house against his (Marsh's) bank, and that all its funds, or the greater part of them, were in New York,-so much so that it could not meet its debt in the clearing house,-knd asked if the Fourth· Street National Bank would aoceptits (the Keystone's) draft against its reserve aocount in the New York bank for this sum of money, and give him clearing-house gold certificates. Mr. Marsh supported this statement by showing a memorandum giving the exact balance which the Keystone Bank had with the Tradesmen's National Bank of New York citY,-a sum between $26,000 and $27,000. Upon this statement the Fourth-Street Bank gave to the Keystone Bank clearing-house certificates for $25,000, and accepted a draft for the same amount drawn by the Keystone Bank on the TraMsmen's Bank of New Yark. The general ledger sheet of the Keystone' Bank showed a balance to its credit with the Tradesmen's Bank at the close of business of March 19, 1891, after deducting this draft for $.25,000, of $1,757.32.
DUEBER WATCH CASE MANUF'G CO. fl. E. HOWARD WATCH & C. CO.
Accepting for the present purpose this presentation of the facts, we have an express statement by the president of the Keystone Bank that a fund was provided for payment of the draft; but between a draft taken in reliance upon such a statement and an assi1,'1lment of the particular fund, the distinction is obvious, and of the latter, or of any intent that the transaction should be in effect anything different from what it was in form, I perceive no indication whatever. It seems, too, that Marsh's statement that the Keystone Bank bad between $2H,000 and $27,000 with the Tradesmen's Bank was not true, and that the general ledger sheet of the Keystone Bank, to which reference has been made, was not correct; but inasmuch as, irrespective of these matters, the fundamental proposition upon which the case of the complainant rests cannot be sustained, no other question need be discussed. The bill is dismissed, with costs.
DtSEBER WATCH CASE
CO. v. E. HOWARD WATCH & CLOCK CO. et aI.
(Circuit Court, S. D. Xew York. May 22, 1893.)
An action to recover damag"s to been caused by acts in violation of the statute prohibiting monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (26 Stat. 209) cannot be maintained when the complaint fails to show that plaintiff is engaged in interstate commerce, and no such showing is made by an averment that plaintiff is engaged in "manufacturing watch cases throughout all the states of the United States and in foreign countries."
SAME-CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.
TN HICSTHATNT OF THADE -ACTION FOR DAMAGES-PLEADTNG.
An agreement by a number of manufacturers and dealers in watch cases to fix an arbitrary price on their goods, and not to sell the same to any persons buying watch cases of plaintiff, is not in violation of the statute; and a complaint whi:h, on the last analysis, avers only these facts, without averring the absorption or the intention to absorb or control the entire market, or a large part thereof, states no cause of action.
At Law. Action by the Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Company against the E. Howard 'Watch & Clock Company and others to recover damages alleged to result from an illegal conspiracy to destroy plaintiff's trade. Defendants demur to the complaint. Demurrer sustained. Statement by COXE, District Judge:
The complaint alleges tItnt prior to November 16, 1887, the plaintiff was engaged in watch ('nses throu;!hout nIl the stntes of tllP United States and in foreign countries, employing a large number of skilled artisans who were and are able to produce 25,000 watch cases per month. That prier to said date the plnintiff had a ready market for its good,; throughout the United States .and Canada, and realized a profit of, at least, $lTi,OOO per anmun. TlJat on November 16, lS87, the defendants, who were and are engaged in selling watches and watch cases, mutually agr,o;ed, and notified the watch dealers throughout the United States and Canada, including some of the plaintiff's customers, "that they would not t.hereafter sell manufactured by them to any person, firm, associaticn. or corporation whatsoewr who thereafter should buy or sell any goods manufactured by