Capitol State Bank v. Lane
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Hon. G-eo. E. BrowN, Judge. The facts in the case are very fully stated in the opinion of the court. It is assigned for error : 1. The court erred in awarding judgment against said bank, and in not rendering judgment in favor of the bank. ■ 2. In overruling motion for a new trial. Upon the facts in the case Lane is not entitled to recover.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Hon. G-eo. E. BrowN, Judge. The facts in the case are very fully stated in the opinion of the court. It is assigned for error : 1. The court erred in awarding judgment against said bank, and in not rendering judgment in favor of the bank. ■ 2. In overruling motion for a new trial. Upon the facts in the case Lane is not entitled to recover. Whether the bank was bound to cause protest and to give notice would depend upon the understanding of the immediate parties to the transaction. Gatlin & Gibson did not contemplate such a thing; if so, they waived…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
About the first of the year 1874 Lane sent to the Capitol State Bank, for collection, his sight draft on C. C. Gibson for $372.65, afterwards credited by order of Lane with $.200, leaving $172.65 due. The Capitol State Bank, which is located at Jackson, transmitted this draft to its correspondent at Magnolia, where Gibson lived, for collection, and $60.40. were paid! on it by Gibson, and reported to the Capitol State Bank andi remitted to Lane, and a sight draft by Gatlin & Gibson, a, mercantile firm of which Gibson was a member, for.$56.25, on one Barrett, at Jackson, favor of the cashier of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF THE BANK OF WASHINGTON v. Triplett & NealeSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Branch of the Bank v. Knox & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1840
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bank of Forest v. Capital Nat. BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1936
- FOURTH NATIONAL BANK OF TULSA v. DyerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1960
- Curkeet v. SteinhoffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906