Cocke v. Hood Ex Rel. Central Bank & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.
The paramount question of law produced by the facts is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a preference.
Tbe right to a preference rests upon two theories:
1. That the facts disclose a deposit for a specific purpose or special deposit.
2. That the bank was trustee ex maleficio.'
The record discloses that no new money went into the bank by virtue of creating a separate division of the Trust Department, known and designated as the “Mortgage Pool Account.” All the money involved was already in the bank and consisted of balances too small for profitable investment. The consolidation of such funds…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Edwards v. . CulbersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- Parker v. Central Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- First & Citizens National Bank v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Peoples National Bank v. WaggonerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Snipes v. . MondsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bright v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Stickle v. Guardian Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
- Bright v. HoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Parker v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Masonic Foundation v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.