Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Miss. 567

Holt v. Bacon

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1853

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1853-04-15

In error from the southern district chancery court at Natchez; Plon. James M. Smiley, vice-chancellor. This suit was founded on a bill exhibited in the southern district chancery court, by Bacon and others, the defendants in error, alleging that the Planters Bank had recovered judgmént in the circuit court of Wilkinson county, the 3d May, 1839, for $¡3,568, besides costs of suit, against the plaintiffs in error, Holt and others, and one Joseph Johnson, deceased.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1933

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice FisheR

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The appellees filed their bill in the vice-chancery court at Natchez, alleging, that the president, directors, and company of the Planters Bank of the State of Mississippi transferred to the said complainants a certain judgment recovered against the said appellants in the circuit court of Wilkinson county in favor of said bank.

¶3The answer in effect denies the transfer, and calls for proof of the same.

¶4The testimony shows, that the transfer was made by the cashier of a branch of said Bank, at Woodville, Mississippi. The witness says, that the cashier made out a list of certain judgments, among which was the one now in controversy, and handed it to the witness as the agent of the complainants. This list was intended by the cashier as a transfer of the judgment.

¶5The question here arises, whether this proof sustains the allegation of the bill, that the judgment was transferred by the president, directors, and company of the bank.

¶6Primd facie, the cashier of a bank has no authority to transfer judgments in its favor, or to dispose of its property. His authority, in this respect, extends only to negotiable instruments. The president and directors were the only persons who could legally make the transfer. If the cashier acted as their agent in the-matter, this fact'ought to have been shown in evidence.

¶7Decree reversed, and bill dismissed.

/25/miss/567 · .json · Public domain