Bank of Monett v. Howell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Barry Circuit Cou/rt. — Hon. J. C. Lamson, Judge. It is plain that the counterclaim constituted no defense in law nor stated any cause of action against the plaintiff bank. Banks are not transmitters of money, but buy and sell exchange, receive deposits, make collections, loan money and discount paper.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Barry Circuit Cou/rt. — Hon. J. C. Lamson, Judge. It is plain that the counterclaim constituted no defense in law nor stated any cause of action against the plaintiff bank. Banks are not transmitters of money, but buy and sell exchange, receive deposits, make collections, loan money and discount paper. E. S. 1889, sec. 2745. If the cashier of plaintiff bank promised defendant Howell to transmit this money for him, it was binding on the cashier only and not on the bank. Burris v. Bank of Buffalo, 70 Mu. App. 678. That the court erred in not calling a jury hardly needs any…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
There is no bill of exceptions in this case. The plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note before a justice of the peace. The defendant filed a counterclaim for a sum in excess of the note. The alleged facts as to the counterclaim are, that in May, 1893, the defendant deposited with the plaintiff bank the sum of $300, which amount the officials of the bank agreed to remit to’ theClarksburgSavings Bank, to be applied in the payment of an overdue note of the defendant’s, which was held by the latter bank; -that the plaintiff failed to transmit the money until August, 1894, and that by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Winsor v. Lafayette County BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Burris v. Bank of BuffaloMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. O'BrienMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Hagemann v. PinskaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931
- Reckendorfer v. RobertsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913