Wood v. Citizens Bank
JULIEN WOOD Et Al. v. THE CITIZENS BANK, Administrator, Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
*373 Stacy, C. J.
On tbe findings of tbe referee, approved by tbe trial court, wbi'cb are conclusive as tbey are not challenged for want of evidence to support them, we have discovered no exceptive assignment of error of sufficient merit to work a reversal of tbe judgment.
Tbe two circumstances which differentiate this ease from those cited and relied upon by appellant are, first, the fact that tbe $10,265.00 in question was embezzled from tbe bank by tbe deceased treasurer, and, second, tbe finding that said funds were used by tbe treasurer in bis capacity as such to discharge county obligations.
It is well settled that where one’s property has been purloined by actionable fraud or covin, tbe law permits him to follow it and to recover it from tbe wrongdoer, or from any one to whom it has been transferred otherwise than in good faith and for a valuable consideration, so long as it can be identified or traced; and tbe principle applies to money and cboses in action as well as to specific property.
Proctor v. Fertilizer Co., 189 N. C., 243 , 126 S. E., 608 ;
Mfg. Co. v. Summers, 143 N. C., 102 , 55 S. E., 522 ;
Edwards v. Culberson, 111 N. C., 342 , 16 S. E., 233 . Tbe pursuit of equity in this respect is stopped only when tbe means of ascertainment fail, or tbe rights of bona fide purchasers for value, without notice, intervene.
McNinch v. Trust Co., 183 N. C., 33 , 110 S. E., 663 .
Had tbe referee found that what "Ward did with respect to tbe bank’s funds amounted to a loan, a different question would have been presented.
Liles v. Rogers, 113 N. C., 197 , 18 S. E., 104 ;
Bank v. South Hadley, 128 Mass., 503 ;
Bank v. New Castle, 224 Pa., 285 ;
Pittsburgh v. Bank, 79 Atl. (Pa.), 406.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.