TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hogansville Banking Co. v. Wilkinson

Hogansville Banking Co. v. Wilkinson et vice versa

Hogansville Banking Co. v. Wilkinson, 154 S.E. 789 (Ga. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 13, 1930
Docket
Nos. 7475, 7494
Citations
154 S.E. 789171 Ga. 1651930 Ga. LEXIS 295

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

1. The receipt for collection by a bank in this State, at a time when its officers knew it was insolvent, from a regular customer who did not know of such insolvency, of a check drawn upon a bank in another State, upon the condition that in doing so the bank “acts only as depositor’s collecting agent and . . all items are credited subject to final payment, . . and . . it may charge back any item at any time before final payment,” created such bank merely the agent of such depositor for the purpose of collection; and that relation having been terminated after the closing of the bank of deposit, but prior to the payment of the check by the drawer to a correspondent of the bank of deposit, the depositor is entitled to the proceeds thereof in excess of his indebtedness to the bank.

2. Accordingly, the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the first count of the petition, and, under the facts, in decreeing that the title and ownership of the check and its proceeds was in the petitioner, and that petitioner recover from the defendant the amount designated in the check, less an overdraft of $330.50, together with.interest, and that plaintiff was entitled to payment of the amount of the judgment out of the assets of the bank before payment of the general depositors.

3. The judgment on the main bill of exceptions having been affirmed, the cross-bill of exceptions is dismissed.

Judgment affirmed on the main till of exceptions.

Gross-till of exceptions dismissed. All the Justices concur.

E. T. Moon, for banking company et al. Hall & Jones, contra.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1930: 21932: 11959: 11964: 119302026peak 1930 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pike v. First National Bank of Rome109 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959)
  2. Macon Grocery Co. v. Citizens Bank155 S.E. 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)
  3. Sparks v. Bank of Georgia138 S.E.2d 86 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
  4. Andrew v. Security Trust & Savings Bank243 N.W. 542 (Iowa 1932) · Dissent
  5. Hogansville Banking Co. v. Ware155 S.E. 4 (Ga. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Sparks v. Bank of Georgia138 S.E.2d 86 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
  2. Pike v. First National Bank of Rome109 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959)
  3. Andrew v. Security Trust & Savings Bank243 N.W. 542 (Iowa 1932) · Dissent
  4. Macon Grocery Co. v. Citizens Bank155 S.E. 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)
  5. Hogansville Banking Co. v. Ware155 S.E. 4 (Ga. 1930)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list